In addition to having reasons for the war there are sometimes also significant reasons for a battle and this seemed to clearly apply on the attack of 9/11. From the beginning it could hardly be avoided that Bin Laden was trying to revenge the rocket attack on a factory that represented an important economic source to him by attacking an equivalent target using the air planes to simulate rockets. 

People need to realize more that what is required by a court facing the question of same sex marriage is to rule on the legal validity of the current government process called marriage in its exclusion for that. It is not its job to define or rule on the applicability of the definition of marriage on a same sex relation. In other words, it should be kept in mind that the job of that court is to update or change the government process called marriage to be legally valid. It is not the job of the court to keep or find a fit with what marriage really means. 

   

My talk in the two posts below about being in a trusted position could be very confusing because the situation vary depending on whether the trusted (the clerk in this case),assuming the religiously valid and invalid parts of the job cannot be religiously accepted as inseparable into two jobs, has the choice not to be in that position or not. In both cases justice simply requires giving that legal marriage right thing to its owners even if we assume there is no religiously valid use for it. The difference is that if the clerk believes giving that right by choice is religiously wrong and the condition above apply positively on him then that wrong will be in accepting being in such position without justification while the giving of that right to its owners which causes that wrong will continue to be not only valid but religiously required. 

What is the job requirement of the clerks who issue the marriage licences regarding application of the law and the legal system? Is it to apply the law as they believe it should be or is it to apply the law as it is? Because if it is the later then even if that same sex legal marriage recognition is as wrong as describing a dinosaur as a cat, those who apply for such license have the right for it to be acknowledge as existing in the legal system as it is.     

Continuing with the post below.

An example that is closer to the role of a clerk who register marriages is if one imagine himself being trusted on a storage area were various people store things belonging to them. If the duty of that job is to give back each thing to its owner when he comes asking for it and write that down, would religion requires the person holding that job to allow only those with items that have use that is valid religiously to get their things back? 

I spoke earlier in a different blog of mine about the issue of religion and the registration of marriage for same sex couples by the clerks.

My point there was to point out that one may need to consider the rights such legal recognition, and you can replace the word "marriage" with any other word if it confuses you, gives before stating that it is against his/her religion. Because if there is a reasonably religiously acceptable use for it would it still be your responsibility if it used otherwise? 

After writing that I noticed even if we assume that there is no reasonably religiously acceptable use for that legal recognition from the point of registering the marriage for a same sex couple that may still not answer negatively that doing that as part of a job of issuing marriage licences generally would be in violation of religion. 

To explain that let me take the issue of alcohol in Islam as an example. To my best understanding about following Islam, despite how alcohol is forbidden I cannot sell it but I can sell grape to a person even if I know that he will be using it to make alcohol. 

This later possibility is related to the first argument here. 

But what if instead of those two possibilities somebody calls me to be a witness to a fact which I know being true regarding how an amount of alcohol belongs to him? Assuming no hardship in that, if I want to restrict myself with Islam should I accept or refuse?Which issue takes precedence in this case, that I should not help someone in drinking alcohol or that I should be just and a witness for the truth? 

If you answer that like me with the later option then one may follow that by this question which I recently noticed. Does that apply only to being a witness to the truth or this in itself is a special case of giving what you were trusted on to whom they belong? If so, even assuming there is no religiously valid use from the point of registering legal marriage for same sex couples for that recognition, still couldn't that action be considered giving back a right upon which you were trusted from your position as a general marriage registration clerk and therefore religiously valid?  

For the use of the expression "say it as he/she sees it" I want to point out the importance of recognizing the difference between when saying something is called for by true conviction and trying to work through and abide the self by the facts from when it comes from mere whims and psychological motivation.