What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

Stifle Tower said:
Now that I'm single again, I am against any law that will diminish my chances at finding a new partner. I'll be trying to show I'm the least of the ******** that are on the market. So no on polygamy: unless I happen to find a couple of women who want me. Naw, scratch that; I couldn't afford them.
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong. You make them go work and you kick it at home.
 
DutchJazzer said:
dont know why christians are against birthcontrol. thats just unfounded.
Click to expand...

I don't know why anybody is against birth control in general. I understand some people might make an individual decision to forgo any method of birth control other than abstinence, but that is their private decision.

I also don't know why you singled out Christians in your statement - or why you lump them all in one category as though they are not individual people making individual decisions.
 
moevillini said:
I don't know why anybody is against birth control in general. I understand some people might make an individual decision to forgo any method of birth control other than abstinence, but that is their private decision.

I also don't know why you singled out Christians in your statement - or why you lump them all in one category as though they are not individual people making individual decisions.
Click to expand...

cus honestly only place i hear birth control objection is from (certain) christian groups
 
Glutony is a sin. Perhaps restaurant workers should force their religious beliefs on others by refusing service to fat people. Seriously, how ****ing stupid can people be?
 
Def, Dicky-Come-Lately to this thread but ya'll know my stance on gay marriage.

Anyway, even though this lady is a hypocritical windbag, I do appreciate her staying true to her beliefs and going to jail for them. There is something admirable about that especially in today's time of facebook/ sign holding activism.
 
VINYLONE said:
Def, Dicky-Come-Lately to this thread but ya'll know my stance on gay marriage.

Anyway, even though this lady is a hypocritical windbag, I do appreciate her staying true to her beliefs and going to jail for them. There is something admirable about that especially in today's time of facebook/ sign holding activism.
Click to expand...

Agree to a point - but what about staying true to the oath to uphold the law that she must have taken when she was sworn in to her position? Or maybe that's not done in Kentucky, I don't know.

And as I mentioned earlier, what if a legally married gay couple has purchased a house - - if she's true to her beliefs then she should not be able to record the deed because it would list them as a married couple and in her mind, they're not legally married.

Also, what exactly makes something a "religious" belief? As others have mentioned in various places, could someone who is a Quaker refuse to issue a gun permit because it violates their beliefs? Or a vegetarian who opposes animal killing - could they refuse to issue a hunting or fishing permit? Vegetarianism is linked with a number of religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

Just points to ponder, I guess.
 
moevillini said:
Agree to a point - but what about staying true to the oath to uphold the law that she must have taken when she was sworn in to her position? Or maybe that's not done in Kentucky, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Was gay marriage legal when she was sworn in?
If not, then measures should be taken to accommodate her beliefs. There are other clerks who can issue licenses to gay couples. Just as judges can accuse themselves from cases due to a conflict of interest, I don't see what the big deal is over her accusing herself from issuing licenses.

Now again, if she were sworn in after these marriages became legal, then I have no argument over her being suspended or dismissed. She would have known going in that certain duties conflicted with her beliefs.
 
Stifle Tower said:
Was gay marriage legal when she was sworn in?
If not, then measures should be taken to accommodate her beliefs. There are other clerks who can issue licenses to gay couples. Just as judges can accuse themselves from cases due to a conflict of interest, I don't see what the big deal is over her accusing herself from issuing licenses.

Now again, if she were sworn in after these marriages became legal, then I have no argument over her being suspended or dismissed. She would have known going in that certain duties conflicted with her beliefs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! She is a public servant, paid by taxation, and as such her religion has no place in her job. None. If she feels that she can no longer perform the duties of her office, regardless of when they changed, for whatever reason than she should resign.

The Supreme Court ruling makes gay marriage legal. She issues marriage licenses. Do your job or get out.
 
Stoked said:
Absolutely not! She is a public servant, paid by taxation, and as such her religion has no place in her job. None. If she feels that she can no longer perform the duties of her office, regardless of when they changed, for whatever reason than she should resign.

The Supreme Court ruling makes gay marriage legal. She issues marriage licenses. Do your job or get out.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. Think about it ST, what you're saying seems to mean that any elected official could decide not to enforce laws that were passed after they took office if they had a valid reason to object to those laws. As the chief law enforcement officer in the state, could a state's Attorney General choose not to enforce new laws they object to?

Also, the issue (as I understand it) is that she was not allowing ANYONE in her office to issue the licenses because it is her signature that goes on the license - so it doesn't matter to her who issues the license, her name is still on it.

And apparently Kentucky state law requires the Clerk's signature on these types of licenses and the state legislature would have to change that - but they won't be in session again until January. And the governor says it's too expensive to call a special session just for this, so he won't do that. So it's a real Catch-22.

...But her strongest legal point is that the paperwork confusion caused by Obergefell has caused her to have to follow rules that don’t currently exist. The marriage form, for example, asks licensees for information about the “female” partner.

To be sure, the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that government officials have to put duty above personal beliefs and faith. In a 2002 law review article, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing about judges faced with having to decide an execution, says that a judge “has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own....

...The applicants paid a $35.50 fee, and got a receipt But the licenses did not include the clerk’s signature. For their part, Davis' s attorneys said they’re not "worth the paper they are written on.”

Supporters say Davis has the right to fully abide by her faith, even at the office, especially as it’s up to the legislature, or a state executive, to either change the marriage license forms or set up a different system, such as online applications.

Gov. Steve Beshear has resisted calling a special session to do so, citing his attorney general’s view that the 197 county clerks in Kentucky current issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples are doing so correctly. But that means unless Davis decides to rethink her defiance, she could remain in jail until the legislature does rewrite the law so that her name is not attached to certificate paid for by a same-sex couple. The legislature doesn’t meet again until January.
Click to expand...
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0905/Jailed-Ky.-clerk-Kim-Davis-says-marriage-licenses-without-her-signature-aren-t-valid.-True
 
moevillini said:
Agree completely. Think about it ST, what you're saying seems to mean that any elected official could decide not to enforce laws that were passed after they took office if they had a valid reason to object to those laws. As the chief law enforcement officer in the state, could a state's Attorney General choose not to enforce new laws they object to?

Also, the issue (as I understand it) is that she was not allowing ANYONE in her office to issue the licenses because it is her signature that goes on the license - so it doesn't matter to her who issues the license, her name is still on it.

And apparently Kentucky state law requires the Clerk's signature on these types of licenses and the state legislature would have to change that - but they won't be in session again until January. And the governor says it's too expensive to call a special session just for this, so he won't do that. So it's a real Catch-22.
Click to expand...

What I am waiting to see is if Mrs. Davis will interfere with her clerks issuing those licenses. She never promised not to and has shown little concern for court rulings. 5 of her 6 clerks promised to continue issuing marriage licenses to everyone eligible. The 1 clerk that didn't was her son. Nepotism anyone?
 
Stoked said:
What I am waiting to see is if Mrs. Davis will interfere with her clerks issuing those licenses. She never promised not to and has shown little concern for court rulings. 5 of her 6 clerks promised to continue issuing marriage licenses to everyone eligible. The 1 clerk that didn't was her son. Nepotism anyone?
Click to expand...
What does nepotism mean?
 
fishonjazz said:
What does nepotism mean?
Click to expand...

noun

1. patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

Basically he benefits because his boss is his mother, Kim Davis. Usually that is not allowed in business, especially gov.
 
Stoked said:
noun

1. patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

Basically he benefits because his boss is his mother, Kim Davis. Usually that is not allowed in business, especially gov.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
Stifle Tower said:
Was gay marriage legal when she was sworn in?
If not, then measures should be taken to accommodate her beliefs. There are other clerks who can issue licenses to gay couples. Just as judges can accuse themselves from cases due to a conflict of interest, I don't see what the big deal is over her accusing herself from issuing licenses.

Now again, if she were sworn in after these marriages became legal, then I have no argument over her being suspended or dismissed. She would have known going in that certain duties conflicted with her beliefs.
Click to expand...

*recuse
 
I understand where she's coming from. I don't think I could license those marriages either. I still don't agree with her decidion. I think it would be taking a larger step of faith if she stated she was resigning due to her beliefs, and was willing to give up her nice government gig and benefits. That's my take on it. She needs to do her job or resign. I would probably resign.
 
VINYLONE said:
Anyway, even though this lady is a hypocritical windbag, I do appreciate her staying true to her beliefs and going to jail for them. There is something admirable about that especially in today's time of facebook/ sign holding activism.
Click to expand...

Just another example of recent-convert zealotry. Nothing all that admirable. All recent converts to anything act like they're the first person to have discovered something.
 
JimLes said:
Just another example of recent-convert zealotry. Nothing all that admirable. All recent converts to anything act like they're the first person to have discovered something.
Click to expand...

I have a friend that when we were teenagers he would ak me if I had heard "this" band. If I said yes they were ok at best or just plain horrible. If I said No then they were the GOAT.
 
Howard said:
I understand where she's coming from. I don't think I could license those marriages either. I still don't agree with her decidion. I think it would be taking a larger step of faith if she stated she was resigning due to her beliefs, and was willing to give up her nice government gig and benefits. That's my take on it. She needs to do her job or resign. I would probably resign.
Click to expand...

That's cuz you're a grown up.

I could understand what she's doing if it was in response to a ban (ie. she was banned from getting married to a christian so she refused to issue anyone licenses) but she isn't subject to a ban in any way. She has full legal protection and she is protesting others from obtaining it. That's bs. Being uncomfortable with something or something being against your beliefs is not a claim to injury. I think that, ethically speaking, direct action requires such a claim(or at least in the defense of others). I'm perfectly ok with her protesting for what she thinks is right but again this is direct action and it requires a greater claim than personal opinion. Just as revolution would require an even greater claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top