She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.
A judge who cannot separate their religious bias of what is right and wrong from their role as a judge (the impartial arbiter of law as set forth through the political process), isn’t just saying the separation of church and state shouldn’t apply to marriage. They’re also saying they cannot legitimately sit as a judge because they cannot keep personal bias separate from their role as a fair and neutral arbiter. She’s telling on herself.
Well if you are a nomadic tribe in bronze age Mesopotamia who view women as possessions, then that makes perfect sense.
The Bible makes a ton of sense when you actually study it in an academic setting. It’s when you start getting life advice out of it when things start going down hill really fast.
Yeah, I get the impression that the Bible barely views women as moral agents at all. The rules are written by men, for men. And when a man rapes a woman, she isn’t viewed as the victim, her father is viewed as the victim because he is her owner