Religion has no business guiding legislation
True. But "marriage" was a religious institution centuries before it became a civil function. Just as religion has no business guiding legislation, likewise legislation has no business interfering with religion. The gays and the lesbians have their civil unions -- that's what they are entitled to. Redefining "marriage" so that it includes same sex unions is an unjustified and unwarranted intrusion on religion.
From the letter:
We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.
Yeah -- who'd a' thunk it?
I may be forced to surrender my commission as a Justice of the Peace. My term runs concurrent to presidential terms of office, so I was last sworn in in the January when Obama took office for his second term. At that time, our instructions from the state were that we were authorized to conduct same-sex marriages, but we did not have to do so.
Now, with a SJWs hot on the trail of unbelievers, it seems as if any JP who declines to marry gay couples is likely to get sued. I think that's just wrong. And I don't understand why a gay couple would even want to force a JP who doesn't approve of their so-called "marriage" to officiate. A wedding is supposed to be a day of celebration. Who in their right mind would want to be married by an officiant who disapproves of the entire event and is there only under duress?
I expect that the directive from the state will change soon, to require that all JPs perform same-sex marriages upon request. If that happens ... I'm out. I don't
need to be a JP. As a retired minister I can perform weddings anywhere in the U.S. I can get a commission as a notary public to do pretty much everything else a JP can do.