United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: These Teens Kept Their Sexting Private, But Cops Found Out. Now They Face Sex Offender Registry, Jail.
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/01/t ... s-kept-their-sexting-private-b
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Robby Soave
Post Date: 2015-09-02 10:24:48 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2796
Comments: 83
Fayetteville, North Carolina, cops have charged 17-year-old Cormega Copening with sexual exploitation of a minor—his girlfriend, who is the same age—because the couple sent each other nude photos of themselves during their relationship. There’s no evidence the photos were ever sent to anyone else, and police only became aware of them because they searched Copening’s phone for unrelated reasons that haven't been specified. Even so, the teen—formerly the starting quarterback at his high school—faces decades on the Sex Offender Registry and up to ten years behind bars if convicted. He’s also been benched from the team while Jack Britt High School investigates the matter. Copening’s girlfriend—who remains unnamed in the news articles—is also facing charges, ABC11 reported. These teen-sexting witch hunts are almost always outrageous; they conflate child pornography with something far less sinister. It’s perfectly normal—and wildly common—for kids to express an interest in sex. Should authority figures discourage underage sexting? Sure. Should they ruin kids’ lives for doing it anyway? Absolutely not. But Copening’s situation is more outrageous than most. As far as I can tell, the pictures weren’t shared with anyone else—this isn’t a case where a boy texted a girl’s nude photos to all of his friends and caused her some considerable public humiliation. The photos were private, and remained that way, until the cops got hold of them. If there’s public humiliation here, police intervention is the cause. Consider as well that Copening reciprocated with photos of his own. Does not a mutual, voluntary exchange of photos undercut the notion that “sexual exploitation” is a factor here? It’s more than a little ridiculous to accuse these two of exploiting each other—although this is precisely what the authorities are doing, I presume (the specific charges against the girlfriend were not reported). Lastly, it bears repeating that these teens were 17. If they had waited until they were 18 to send the photos, no crime would have occurred. Eighteen-year-olds are recognized as fully-autonomous sexual adults. Kylie Jenner, who just turned 18, has been inundated with requests to make a sex tape (indeed, filmmakers began making these requests even before she turned 18). The law, by its very nature, permits no nuance: you are 18, or you’re not. But it’s ridiculous to think that teens are magically transformed into adults on their 18th birthday. Many of them—perhaps Copening and his girlfriend—might be ready for mature relationships that involve sex (or, at least, sexy pictures) prior to the government’s randomly-selected date. There’s one more disturbing angle to this story. If Copening is too young to send pictures of his own body, is he not also too young to be made a social pariah? Don’t news agencies often withhold publication of the names of crime victims when they are underage? Copening is a crime victim, according to the police, but multiple local news agencies reported his name and the full situation. They reported on his suspension from the high school football team. They showed his headshot. They pointed out the likelihood that he will have to register as a sex offender. The criminal charges and possible jail time are the worst consequences of the police investigation, but the smearing of Copening’s name and ruining of his high school experience are also unfortunate outcomes—each of them much worse than the harm from a nude photo swap that would have never come to light if the cops had minded their own business. 
Dreamstime
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 77.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
Perhaps. But back in the day the father of the son and the father of the daughter could go to war over such happenings. Hatfields and McCoys etc. But a more reasoned approach is for the father of the daughter to work the matter with the father of the son. However, given the family unit today you cannot be assured either has a father that is present or cares. The moral of the story is to not expose your body to someone who is not your husband/wife.
There are more morals to the story than that. The law itself is excessively harsh, and THEREFORE ungodly. God never prescribed imprisonment, crushing, fines, or anything else, for mere nakedness. It was shameful, that is all. PRISON? Years on a registry that prevents work and habitation? It is pagan in its barbarism. Men are angry that they cannot control the sexual of youth, so they excessively crush one or two as an example to the others. Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all. The law should not be involved with this. And if it is, the law should be lenient and instructive to the teenagers, not barbaric and life ending. Any man who stands and bellows that these children should be crushed "to make an example" is standing there with a stone, and the accused are not even adulterers. Remember what Jesus warned: let he among you who is without sin (not without this SPECIFIC sin - Jesus did not narrow it like that, but we can: let he among you who is without SEXUAL sin) cast the first stone. And remember well what else Jesus warned: he who forgives will be forgiven, but he who will not forgive shall not be forgiven by the Father either. Think on that well. Every man who crushes these teenagers for something that is an imprudence, nothing more, has set the standard by which God will judge him for his sexual sins. What man casting that stone to crush has MERELY the sin of exposure to a lover, hmmm? The men who want to hound these teens into a hell on earth are casting their own souls into hell. God will not forgive them their sexual sins, and he will crush them at judgment BECAUSE they set the standards. In other words: if you yourself do not want to be thrown into the soul prison of hell for your own sexual sins, back off on these teenagers and forgive them. Have mercy on them, and God will have mercy on you. Refuse them mercy, and you have damned your own soul. Jesus said that - and he said it three times. He meant it. Take is literally, or burn in hell.
Yeah. Just like drunk driving. Hey, if no one was injured, no property damaged ... WTF? Right? Why ruin some guy's life because he did something dumb and socially inappropriate?
Why ruin some guy's life because he did something dumb and socially inappropriate? Yes. Like that, but much moreso, because drunk driving can kill people. Dumb pictures cannot. Sending nude pictures of each other is a far more trivial thing than driving a ton of metal while inebriated. But we punish the nudie pictures more harshly than drunk driving, even. In any case, my approach to law is based upon what God said to do and not to do, and on the way that he taught judgment and punishment. I am making the point, to Christians, that if they are harsh and unforgiving, they are setting themselves that very standard of judgment when they are judged by God for everything they have ever done. There is no statute of limitations with God, and nothing is hidden. Everybody is a sinner. Everybody has done dumb, and evil and illegal things. If a man is a self-righteous "CRUCIFY THEM!" prig, because his own sins are hidden, if he's a Christian he needs to understand that, because he has taken that approach, that he has himself chosen the standard of judgment God will apply to him. The harsh righteous prig who says "CRUCIFY THEM, THEY BROKE THE LAW!" has broken the law of God many time, and God will crucify him for having done so - God will apply to each man the standard of judgment that that man has applied to his fellow men. Jesus promised that three times, and he did so as a matter of warning - he said that those who do not forgive other men will not be forgiven for their sins by God. My primary concern is not for the "criminal" or the "victim" in this case. It's with the Christians ready to cast stones. I would prefer that men not cast themselves into Hell by being judgmental jackasses, but that's what they do, and they ought to know that, because Jesus made it so clear, so many times. Nudie pictures are degrading, and the individuals can be shamed, and taught not to do that. But prison and long periods of severe punitive restriction afterwards? It is excessive. And eagerly urging on such a system of excessive judgment earns Hell for the man who delights in harsh punishment of others, because it means that God will likewise brutally punish him for every minor sin he ever committed. The harsh man can abandon all hope of heaven, because he has set a standard of judgment of his own crimes, by God, which makes it impossible for him to pass it. And that's stupidity incarnate. The pagan doesn't know this. But the Christian who can read OUGHT to know this. If he doesn't, he's ignorant of the truths of his own God. If he HAS read it, and doesn't give a damn what God says, and chooses to be a judgmental jackass anyway, then he is one of those Christians who cries "Lord, Lord", but who has apportioned for himself a place in the fire. You're worried about the effects of the nudie pictures on the people photographed. I'm worried about the eternal damnation of the souls of the judgmental jackasses who want to crucify children for what are truly petty mistakes. Send a boy to jail for 10 years for exchanging nude pictures, and you have damned yourself to hell. Understand that.
But we punish the nudie pictures more harshly than drunk driving, even. The harsh laws stem from recent (within the past few years) events where young people/kids committed suicide because some idiot posted their photos on the internet. That is why some localities have strict laws on this type of cyber blackmail/bullying. I'm not saying these punishments befit the crimes, they don't, but some localities and our society in general treats cyber blackmail/bullying crimes more serious than others. We live in a very sensitive society now. Where people take their own lives when their profiles and nude photos, and sexual orientation is posted for the entire world to see. And sensitive so much that they make all sorts of laws thus increasing the possibilities of the authorities to arrest and DAs to prosecute people.
That is why some localities have strict laws on this type of cyber blackmail/bullying. I'm not saying these punishments befit the crimes, they don't, but some localities and our society in general treats cyber blackmail/bullying crimes more serious than others. We live in a very sensitive society now. Where people take their own lives when their profiles and nude photos, and sexual orientation is posted for the entire world to see. And sensitive so much that they make all sorts of laws thus increasing the possibilities of the authorities to arrest and DAs to prosecute people. And what I am saying, over and over again, is that Christians are lost in the weeds worrying about these temporal things. It is so clear. Truth: none of these things MATTER. They are transient. But judgment is PERMANENT. And Jesus has warned - in just specifically this exact sort of judicial case - that the way we judge our temporal, legal affairs, the way we conduct our supposedly "secular" judgments, sets the standard by which God will most certainly judge us. Which means that Christians condemn themselves to Hell when they adopt zero- tolerance, throw-away-the-key attitudes on civil and criminal matters. Throw away the key on somebody for his crime, and God is going to throw away the key on YOU for your sin. Send a boy to prison for ten years for a nude photo, and you have probably LITERALLY damned yourself to an eternity in Hell. Jesus warned about this. Christians are not permitted to separate church and state. How they handle themselves in their public affairs, their views on law enforcement and crime and punishment SET THE STANDARDS by which THEY THEMSELVES will CERTAINLY be judged by God. Jesus PROMISED this THREE TIMES, and yet Christians seem to be ignorant of it, as though, when it comes to secular law enforcement and what they DO - it all doesn't matter because they're forgiven by God. Jesus said that Christians are forgiven NOTHING if they do not forgive. In fact, in the parable, Jesus showed that Christians who WERE forgiven are called BACK by the ruler, UNFORGIVEN, and thrown into prison and torture for LATER not being forgiving AFTER they were forgiven. Jesus' parable makes it very clear that God's forgiveness of Christians' sins is absolute - whatever the sin (except perhaps blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) - BUT ALSO that this forgiveness is also PROVISIONAL - that the forgiven servant who THEN AFTERWARDS goes out and is himself unforgiving, will be hauled BACK before God and God will remove his forgiveness and damn him as he deserves, using EXACTLY the same harsh standard that the formerly forgiven Christian used. Jesus made this CLEAR in his parable. Christians refuse to see it. The path is strait and narrow and few make it through the gate BECAUSE they lie to themselves and grant themselves greater liberty than in fact God gave us. Christians are to be SHEEP, not lions. When Christians throw off the sheeplike nature and turn into lions, because of wrath, they leave the flock, and they end up judged on the standards by which they judged. Recall the Jubilee: ALL CRIMES, forgiven. NO RECORD kept. And the Sabbatical Year: ALL DEBTS, forgiven. This is the LAW, and Jesus UPHELD THE LAW. I see Christians obsessing about sexual sin. What is Christ's standard in the clear case of sexual sin: a stoning of a true adulteress - IF you are without sin, you may cast the first stone. But you shall be judged and punished by the standards by which you judged and punished. What this means is that every Christian with any sexual sin has to forgive all sexual sin in others, up to and including DEATH PENALTY OFFENSES under the laws of God: adultery. Because IF the Christian is unforgiving, BECAUSE he has sexual sins, IF he goes and executes the adulteress, then that Christian WILL BE THROWN INTO HELL. He judged death, in spite of his own sin. He was not merciful, unto death. And he is therefore unforgiven by God - and God has PROMISED to damn him and not forgive him - EXACTLY THE STANDARD THAT THE CHRISTIAN APPLIED. Baptism and belief DOES NOT GRANT SALVATION. Obedience is required, and the debtor forgiven the great debt by the judge was hauled BACK before the judge and the forgiveness stripped away, and he was thrown into the dungeon to be tortured because AFTER his forgiveness, he did not forgive. Jesus said, explicitly, that the Father will do exactly the same thing to you. Christians who tell themselves that because they are Christians and baptized and believe, they are forgiven, are liars. They lie to themselves. Jesus never said that. Jesus said that the requirement for forgiveness was to forgive, and that if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you. JEsus did not make any exception for believers, and he was speaking TO believers. Unforgiving Christians all go to Hell, by choice. This is the reality of the universe. Christians need to stop dicking around about this and pretending there is any confusion: their very salvation is at stake. Nobody should be more concerned about prison reform and taking the harshness and injustice out of the criminal justice system than Christians, because AS WE JUDGE we are judged. And because we are all sinners, we cannot stand up to a standard of harsh scrutiny. Apply that logic to this case, and the answer is clear. People are embarrassed by nude pictures. They should be. But that is the extent of the issue under God's law: it's embarrassing and shameful. IF, then, an unstable person murders herself because of pictures, that murder is NOT the responsibility of the one who did the shameful thing, under God's law. It is HER responsibility alone. OUR LAW must not punish the guy who took the picture and that the girl let him take, or that she sent him. If she let's herself be photographed nude, she has done something shameful. If that is then circulated, she bears her shame. That is just. If she kills herself, that is her crime. The punishment for the other who circulated the pictures is to be shamed himself. Imprison him, though, and treat him like a killer, as our law may, and you have substituted a rule of wrath for God's law. And God help you if you do that. Christians have the duty to tell people when they are walking into Hell - and excessive punishments for ANYTHING are standing into hellfire. The law cannot be fierce. It must be, rather, aimed at correction, and full of mercy. Unless we want to burn in hell for enforcing our own hellish laws, and setting ourselves up to be judged by standards that we cannot meet, thereby destroying our own soul. In God's Israel there were no cell phones. If a girl showed herself nude to a boy, neither was to be stoned, or enslaved, or tortured, or burnt, or even fined. They were shamed. If they fornicated, and she was a virgin, then he was married to her for life, unless her father said no (if she was a minor). There is no penalty under God's law for nudity other than being ashamed. That's it. And THEREFORE there cannot be any harsher laws under mere human law than that, because if we impose harsher punishments for nothing, God will use that harsh standard to judge us for everything - and none of us can bear that. We must each understand that the standards we apply in our greatest wrath are the very standards that God is going to judge us by. If we cannot contain our wrath, then we must keep ourselves away from the reins of power whereby we may damn ourselves to hell. The degree to which Christians have to be mild, turn the other cheek, admonish and correct with words, but not impose by force punishments that exceed God's law - that degree is set by Christ. It's only "optional" in the sense that going to Heaven is optional. You can choose to be a judgmental and hard man, and if you do, you will not go to heaven and you will be thrown, by God, into Hell at judgment - just as Jesus promised - because you cannot survive judgment by your own standards. Remember, it is not judgment for men's laws by your standards - it is applying your standards of harshness to your violations of GOD'S law. Remember that liars - simply lying - is a hellfire offense. Lie, and burn in hell. Fornicate, and burn in Hell. Did you ever lie? Did you ever fornicate? Then you ate the forbidden fruit and you are doomed to the fire. The only way OUT is the way Jesus said: forgive others their sins, and God will forgive you yours. That's it. "...and forgive us our trespasses as [like/in the manner that/to the extent that] we forgive those who trespass against us." This is a rather huge part of Christian Salvation, and yet Christians are blundering into these harsh judgmental statements all the time. You'd think they didn't understand their own God. Maybe they just haven't thought about it before. Well, that's my mission: to make Christians see what God said, exactly as he said it, and make them open their eyes and stop destroying themselves while making a mess of their religion.
So why are we still posting to each other on the matter:) You just wrote a book!:)
I am posting to really irritate Christians. They need to be irritated, because they need to start scratching the itch. And when they wheel to confront me, and open up their Scriptures, they will realize that all I am doing is putting God's words - and some of them will open their eyes. Another place where I'm going to post, as soon as the article hits the board, is on that poor clerk who went to jail in Kentucky. This is another place where God's rules are quite different from the human rules - BOTH the secular ones AND the religious ones. And now that the secular, paganizing state has forced the confrontation, Christians literally MUST open their eyes to the real rule of God and stop fighting the wrong fight. To the extent they cling to traditions that are wrong, they sink with the evil culture. People need to stop sinking.
Frankly, the only ones here on LF that seem to get irritated by your comments are those that reject the Christian faith, atheists and agnostics. And now that the secular, paganizing state has forced the confrontation, Christians literally MUST open their eyes to the real rule of God and stop fighting the wrong fight. To the extent they cling to traditions that are wrong, they sink with the evil culture. Now, THAT is quite a good subject. Ping me when you get there. It will be interesting to say the least:)
Ok, here goes. I've done this at length, but disjointedly elsewhere. Here, I'm going to do is short and sweet. I will state the law, but I'm not going to go cite it all. It's there and easy to find, and anybody who has read the Scriptures as often as people who believe in God ought to will recognize that I am making nothing up. (1) God gave a law in Torah that applies to all of mankind until the end of the world. Jesus said so. Jesus' coming, dying, resurrecting and ascending, to come again, did not cancel the law. HE HIMSELF upheld it all until the end of the world. (2) Certain aspects of the law were specifically modified by Jesus for general application: the food law for the world is that of the time of Noah, not of Moses and the Hebrews of Israel, marriage is for life, divorce and remarriage is adultery, the sacrificial rites were specifically for Jews, and God removed the Temple to prevent the Jews from being able to fulfill the law - therefore the land covenant entered the penalty clause and the Jews were cast out of Israel by God FOR GOOD. (3) The moral law remains, but the only salvation covenant is with Jesus. (4) The Jewish covenant didn't have anything to do with salvation of souls, but only with a secure farm in Israel - that's gone for the Jews, but God's moral opinions in the law are THE LAW for Christians (and everybody else_. Everybody else doesn't know that, but Christians ought to. There is no excuse for pretending that the Law does not fully apply to Christians. It does. The food restrictions and rituals, however, are NOT PART OF THE LAW for the world - they gave Jews a farm in Israel. (5) God forbade men to ADD to the law, or to SUBTRACT from it. And Jesus said the same thing. Jesus said that whoever takes the least from the law will be least, and whoever doesn't keep his commandments is not following him and being "Christian" then does that man no good. (6) Marriage is part of the law from the beginning. It is, specifically, one man, one woman, for life, no divorce. Sexual union to form one creates the bond. (7) The Torah has one hundred detailed pages of every single ritual in God's law. There is NO RITE OF MARRIAGE. Nor did Jesus create a rite of marriage. There is, therefore, NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY CLERICAL APPROVAL, or attendance, or registry - nothing involing the temple, or the church, or any minister, when it comes to marriage. Nor the state. Marriage is formed by two people and God - no other person is required, and it is a sin of adding to the law (see above) to assert that marriage must be by a minister, or in a church, or requires any ritual at all. (8) EVERY aspect of Christian and Jewish Church marriage ritual is purely and entirely man-made tradition, none of it is law, and it is sinful to state that any of it is law. Marriage cannot be formed by priests, and no prisst, or witness, is ever required, Men sin when they say otherwise. Marriage is one man, one woman, committed to each other before God. When they have sex, they are married, for life. That's it. No service. No paper. No consecration. What happens in church or synagogue is an optional party. It does not create a marriage, it is not required for a marriage, and it is a lie, and a sin, to say that it is. This is CRUCIAL. It is crucial BECAUSE the Churches say that a service IS required, and that is a lie - an addition to the law and therefore a sin. It was a sinful tradition created in the past to give CONTROL by men over other marriages, but God never ever once granted man that power. The tradition was popular BECAUSE men want to control the marriage of those younger them and under them. That control, however well intentioned, and however old the tradition, is made up and invalid. And to assert that the man made tradition is REQUIRED for a marriage to exist is a lie. Lies come from Satan. It is imperattive that the Churches be compelled to admit that they are wholly unnecceary to form valid marriage BECAUSE THEY ARE. Every minister who asserts otherwise does so with no Scripture, and with God's law shouting in his face DO NOT ADD. He is adding. Now watch him defend what he has added because it is a 5000 year old tradition. Yes, it is. A human tradition, not made by God. Human traditions are fine. When they are asserted as requirements of God's law, they are lies of Satan and they MUST be called out and forced to defend themselves. The Pope can say he has the power of the keys, and it means that the Pope can say marriage in Church is REQUIRED - and then one can debate with him the limits of the power of the keys. Bit nobody ELSE can claim anything, because Scripture never once gives any ritual at all. None. THEREFORE NONE EXISTS. THEREFORE IT IS A SIN TO SAY ONE DOES, just because it's a TRADITION. That TRADITION made Churches unjustly powerful in the past, it gave them an authority that God never gave. A man and a woman deciding to marry and having sex are married, and nohody has any say over that. It is never for man to judge it. And when men assert the power to judge, the add to the law and sin - their claim is a lie, their judgment is a sin. The past is the past. But in the PRESENT the effect of the lie of the Christian Churches, that they have the power to marry and that marriage is not valid without their services, has now become a tool of Satan. It has become a tool of Satan because the STATE intervened with ITS law, and says that people cannot marry without the STATE giving a license. That's as false as the Church's claim. But because the Churches had already gone down the path of lies, and had the weakness that anything built on Satan has (anything built on a lie is built on Satan) the CHURCHES now will not marry people without the STATE'S license. The clergy will tell you that it is no marriage unless the clergy perform it - and that is a lie and a sin - but then they won't marry anybody, out of fear of the state, unless the state's license is procured. So now the falsehood of church control over marriage is compounded by the imposition of s state rule of marriage licensing - and the Churches meekly obey. Meaning that now the Churches force people to buy from the state an adulterated thing that is called "marriage", and that is allowed to gays, and the CHURCHES THEMSELVES say that this paper is NECESSARY or they won't marry you...and they say that THEIR SERVICES are necessary or you are not married. What alternative? To go to the state! Out of the pan and into the fire. And all because Satan's lies became a tradition, and the Churches of the past, for power and wealth and control, added to God's law the requirement of a Church service to form a marriage. The true rule is that two people decided to marry by committing themselves to each other before God, alone, with no witnesses, and having sex. If that is "hard to administer" that means that God did not INTEND for other men to administer it. In the past, when the STATE enforced sexual law, the necessity of marriage in the church or before a judge meant bowing to the license, lest one be arrested for fornication for haivng sex with one's wife, because the state's and the Churches' false ritual was not respected. But today, the state doesn't prosecute or care about fornication. Yet the churches still enforce the lie that they are necessary to form a marriage, and they enforce the state's licensing requirement. And this, then, causes the situation of the poor, deliuded Christian martyr woman in jail for contempt. SHE believes that the license is necessary, that the service is necessary, for marriage. In truth, the marriage license is IRRELEVANT to actual marriage. In light of the truth, Christians need to firmly compel their churches to either marry people without licenses - explaining that the state will not consider it a valid "marriage" for state purpsoes (and thereby pressing all churches into direct civil disobedience) - this is the best way. And when the organized Churches will not respect God's law, obey God, and strike the false claim that only the clergy can create a marriage, and that the church is required,,,and when the Churches will not stop demanding the state's marriage license to perform that service, Christians have to obey God - and that means that Christians MUST NOT SUBMIT to the false church doctrine at all. If it's a sacrament, the Church must perform it without requiring the state's adulterated "license". But that's illegal and the Churches are already compromised by the lie. SO THEREFORE Christians must stop perpetuating the lie. Christians must marry by NOT submitting to the church's enforcement of the state's licensing requirement, but instead by shacking up, committing to each other before God, and having sex. Then Christians need to instruct their fellow Churchmen in the truth and tell them to stop being pharisees. The Church MUST divide over this, because the doctrine of Church marriage, always a false tradition, is NOW being used to enforce the state's adulterated "marriage" license! Lies compound lies, and evil compounds. It is very important that the Churches formally be forced to renounce their false doctrine and speak the truth on the matter of marriage - that it is private, between three: a man, a woman and God, and that the marriage is consecrated not by a vow, but by sexual intercourse. That is the truth. The Tradition is old, but is has now become a shoehorn by which Satan, through the state, is imposing sodomite marriage, and forcing married couples to line up with sodomites, with the Church meekly licking the state's hand and obeying the law that says they cannot "marry" people without a license. Christians need to stand up for the truth - and that means ending the charade. Christian marriage is shacking up for lifre. THAT is the BIBLICAL model, and the only true one. Instead of this "marriage license", through the false church doctrines of the necessity of clerical marriage, being a shoehorn to force bending to Satan, the bad old lie of a tradition needs to go. Christians need to assert their FREEDOM under the law to NOT follow bad Church traditions which never should have been implemented in the first place, but that now have become a vehicle for Satan to impose the unthinkable. Christians need to marry the real way, wear rings, and hold themselves out as married in all things. And when told to present a paper, state truly that their religion does not acknowledge any requirement of a paper from any authority to be married, and that indeed their religion requires them NOT to admit that men can limit God's law of marriage, which is free, open,and not subject to human constraint. The constraint is two, for life, and nothing more. Then Christians, as a group, can move to strike the marriage license requirement for things like Social Security benefits. Remember: Christians are not supposed to be going to the law in disputes with each other anyway, and there is no such thing as Christian divorce. This is the way that lies, bad traditions and the artifices of Satan are destroyed: truth, and following the law AS WRITTEN, and no longer ACCEPTING the false additions. The effect of this on Christianity would be a breath of fresh air. The sheer LIBERTY of Christianity under God's ACTUAL LAW is bracing. Suddenly, two people, alone, decide whether to marry, and once they decide, and live that way, they ARE married. That's the way it actually IS, by God's law. A whole skein of false religious traditions says that people who later "marry" in Church "live in sin" while they shack up: false. Completely false. Pharisaic tradition. VIRGINITY becomes the central feature of marriage - and marriage is properly TAUGHT THAT WAY. Truth is, teach gitls that they are MARRIED TO whomever they first have sex with - or that they're whores if there was no intent to stay together - because that's the truth under God's law - and you have a bracingly clear view of reality. All of the bogus business about ceremonies and all of the parade of expenses, "wedding cakes", clergy, etc. - suddenly it's all utterly OPTIONAL, just traditional wedding planning, and NOT actually a requirement of the religion. Currently, it IS a requirement of the religion, but the fact that it is a REQUIREMENT is, in fact, a SIN before God, for it is adding something very important to the law. The importance has been crystallized by the gay marriage drama. As is so often the case, men are faced with a choice of following God into freedom, or clinging to rotting traditions that are falling apart. "Conservatives" cling to traditions AS THOUGH they were holy. So did Pharisees. God damned them for it. The Bible is clear as to what marriage is. And if Christians FOLLOW THAT, all of a sudden the ground shifts in a way that is impossible for the politicians OR the compromised clergy to control. For once people realize they are married by deciding to be, and say so, and do that, the state won't be able to re-enforce the sex laws, to force people to buy their license, and then Christians really will face economic discrimination, and will have a very powerful incentive to vote en masse to recognize "Christian marriage", which is two people marrying before God and asserting it. Nothing more.
No argument there. You are correct. However this woman is a county clerk of some sort. Her job description involves more than signing and sealing marriage certificates. She probably handles contracts, birth certificates and election results. We have pharmacists who refuse to sell the morning after pill and other birth control. Why not this lady? I'm sure as a lawyer you can refuse to endorse a legal document which you find violates your Christian morals. Such as something legal but immoral like a corporation exacting a high interest.
She is asserting her Christian faith on a matter reqarding a marriage certificate. The truth Christian faith is that the marriage certificate is an irrelevant human check-the-block that has nothing to do with marriage. ALL laws of the state that exceed the laws of God are oppressions of some sort. Christians should not be serving in such roles.
My point from my earlier diatribe, put more clearly is she is a county clerk. Marriage certificates are one part of her job, not the only thing a county clerk does. When she was elected to that office as a citizen and Christian there was no conflict of job over faith. The SCOTUS changed that. Just as the SCOTUS changed the abortion laws. When the SCOTUS changed the abortion laws, many doctors refused to perform abortions (that number is growing every year). Some devout doctors won't even perform abortions when the mother has a condition threatening their life. What happens, another doctor steps in. So this woman refuses to issue marriage licenses because doing so for a sodomite couple violates her religious convictions. Like the doctors who will not perform abortions, she too should be able to invoke her religious liberty to refuse signing the marriage certificate. "Adam and Steve" can find another willing clerk in another county. Just as women hunt for a doctor who will perform an abortion for them. Now your premise is there should not be any type of marriage certificate to begin with. I think that is going to happen faster than you think. Alabama is heading that way fast. I think LA under Jindal is moving that way too. Where we differ: I think she is right. If she signs her name on the dotted line saying Neal and Bob are 'husband and husband' she is violating her Christian convictions. Our Constitution allows for religious liberty and protection of conscience. Just as if she signed a marriage certificate where the man and woman just got a 'no- fault' divorce. She should refuse to sign those too. Usually a clerk won't know that some do require the divorce decree before issuing a new license. So in that situation, if she were consistent, would refuse that heterosexual couple as well. I'll say again that marriage certificates are one part of her job. I'm sure she does birth certificates too and those are not required by God's Law either. Should she refuse to do birth certificates? Or just quit and cloister herself in some Christian community like the Amish do? I guess she can become a pharmacist and cause even more issues by refusing to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill and birth control pills.
When the SCOTUS changed the abortion laws, the country was supposedly 85% Christian. Every Christian should have been up, organized by their churches, to amend the Constitution right then, to protect life. Why didn't that happen? It didn't happen because of weaknesses in organized Christianity itself, in the practice of faith and the terms of faith taught, that are untrue, and that have vitiated the whole enterprise. Jesus said to first remove the plank from our own eyes, and only then to remove the mote from our brother's We cannot remove the plank from our own eyes if we will not knuckle under to God's law and admit what it is, and what it is not. If we don't know the law, we cannot impose it upon ourselves. If our Churches teach us the weak and destructive doctrine that God's law is OVER and that we need not concern ourselves with it, then we delude ourselves and throw the church, and ourselves on the dungheap. We are, in fact, required to have memorized all of God's law, to apply it to ourselves and everything under our control, without adding to it or subtracting from it. And then we are required to force our churches to follow God's law, adding nothing and subtracting nothing, or to destroy those churches and replace them with real ones if they will not. And then, with clarity and unity of purpose, we will be in the position to go out and win. Otherwise, we're just like the Iraqi dead-enders: disorganized, fanatical about some things, foolish, divided, and throwing ourselves into useless suicide attacks.
#78. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#77)
You must mean the part about acting like sheep instead of like real men and women...
No one is going to honor and follow God's Laws if they don't truly believe Him and have His love indwell them. Jesus said that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
#43. To: redleghunter (#36)
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
"Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all. The law should not be involved with this. And if it is, the law should be lenient and instructive to the teenagers, not barbaric and life ending."
#57. To: misterwhite (#55)
Yeah. Just like drunk driving. Hey, if no one was injured, no property damaged ... WTF? Right?
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Yes. Like that, but much moreso, because drunk driving can kill people. Dumb pictures cannot. Sending nude pictures of each other is a far more trivial thing than driving a ton of metal while inebriated.
#61. To: redleghunter (#60)
The harsh laws stem from recent (within the past few years) events where young people/kids committed suicide because some idiot posted their photos on the internet.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
It is so clear. Truth: none of these things MATTER.
#63. To: redleghunter (#62)
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#63)
I am posting to really irritate Christians.
#67. To: redleghunter (#65)
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
The Bible is clear as to what marriage is. And if Christians FOLLOW THAT, all of a sudden the ground shifts in a way that is impossible for the politicians OR the compromised clergy to control. For once people realize they are married by deciding to be, and say so, and do that, the state won't be able to re-enforce the sex laws, to force people to buy their license, and then Christians really will face economic discrimination, and will have a very powerful incentive to vote en masse to recognize "Christian marriage", which is two people marrying before God and asserting it. Nothing more.
#72. To: redleghunter (#69)
#74. To: Vicomte13, CZ82, liberator (#72)
She is asserting her Christian faith on a matter reqarding a marriage certificate. The truth Christian faith is that the marriage certificate is an irrelevant human check-the-block that has nothing to do with marriage.
#77. To: redleghunter (#74)
When the SCOTUS changed the abortion laws, many doctors refused to perform abortions (that number is growing every year). Some devout doctors won't even perform abortions when the mother has a condition threatening their life. What happens, another doctor steps in.
Replies to Comment # 77. It didn't happen because of weaknesses in organized Christianity itself
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 77.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]