News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[81usaf92]

what?

please tell me how the constitution was not respected in giving gay rights? If anything the constitution is finally being followed and allowing everyone equal access to marital rights. How you draw that to some sort of future Sharia is mental gymnastics I can't follow. Hell the rights pushing of RFRA's could actually allow for Sharia but since their your party I'm sure you don't see it

I could see your argument applying to Hobby Lobby by the way though as I can't find the constitutional basis for the decision and even though I hated the decision I can see the Constitutional basis for Citizens United.

Well how do you know the constitution 100% being followed on the gay rights thing? Where is marriage ever specifically stated in the constitution? It's not is the correct answer. Lawyers find vague terminology in order to try to entice a judge to make a radical call. The gay rights activists used the 14th amendment to say marriage is an equal right ordained by the government. Marriage isn't clearly defined, and isn't even mentioned in constitution. So with the term "marriage" not being a right mentioned in the constitution, wouldn't logic say that goes to the discretion of the states guaranteed through this constitution you love to go back to under the 10th amendment?

I think what Christians and other people that practice religion are troubled about is the term "marriage". The mass majority of the people that sued were suing because of benefits and not because they truly wanted a marriage license . So why didn't the government try to grant domestic partnerships and do away with the term legally married which would be a win-win for both sides? Because the government ever since teddy and the progressives in the turn of the 1900s have been all about controlling every aspect of economic and social life of the American citizen

 

[Bamaro]

Well how do you know the constitution 100% being followed on the gay rights thing? Where is marriage ever specifically stated in the constitution? It's not is the correct answer. Lawyers find vague terminology in order to try to entice a judge to make a radical call. The gay rights activists used the 14th amendment to say marriage is an equal right ordained by the government. Marriage isn't clearly defined, and isn't even mentioned in constitution. So with the term "marriage" not being a right mentioned in the constitution, wouldn't logic say that goes to the discretion of the states guaranteed through this constitution you love to go back to under the 10th amendment?

I think what Christians and other people that practice religion are troubled about is the term "marriage". The mass majority of the people that sued were suing because of benefits and not because they truly wanted a marriage license . So why didn't the government try to grant domestic partnerships and do away with the term legally married which would be a win-win for both sides? Because the government ever since teddy and the progressives in the turn of the 1900s have been all about controlling every aspect of economic and social life of the American citizen

Yeah, what ever happened to the concept of 'civil unions'? People didn't seem to get bent out of shape that much over that. 'Marriage' on the other hand seems to be so much more polarizing. Legally they can be identical.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Yeah, what ever happened to the concept of 'civil unions'? People didn't seem to get bent out of shape that much over that. 'Marriage' on the other hand seems to be so much more polarizing. Legally they can be identical.

Actually, both sides got bent out of shape. The gay activist side got angry because it made their marriages 'less than accepted' by society or unequal (same reason for slipping it under the title of 'marriage equality,' because, after all, who can possibly be against 'equality'); the 'traditional marriage' activist side basically concurred in that it was 'really just marriage under another name.' There were some folks (I wanna say Christie was one of them) who split the difference and came down 'for' civil unions but 'against' gay marriage.' (That might have even been Obama's position at one point in time, I'm not sure - he changes his mind and positions enough, who knows?).

In 2004, civil union was a big term, all the rage. It virtually was gone by 2009. I also remember that bastion of self-appointed virtue James Dobson opposing civil unions for the same reason - 'it was just marriage under another name.'

I agree with your point that 'legally they can be identical.'

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Well how do you know the constitution 100% being followed on the gay rights thing? Where is marriage ever specifically stated in the constitution? It's not is the correct answer. Lawyers find vague terminology in order to try to entice a judge to make a radical call. The gay rights activists used the 14th amendment to say marriage is an equal right ordained by the government. Marriage isn't clearly defined, and isn't even mentioned in constitution. So with the term "marriage" not being a right mentioned in the constitution, wouldn't logic say that goes to the discretion of the states guaranteed through this constitution you love to go back to under the 10th amendment?

I think what Christians and other people that practice religion are troubled about is the term "marriage". The mass majority of the people that sued were suing because of benefits and not because they truly wanted a marriage license . So why didn't the government try to grant domestic partnerships and do away with the term legally married which would be a win-win for both sides? Because the government ever since teddy and the progressives in the turn of the 1900s have been all about controlling every aspect of economic and social life of the American citizen

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head - it was never about 'marriage,' it was always about 'money and benefits.' Always.

If there was no money in it, nobody would care.

 

[Bamaro]

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head - it was never about 'marriage,' it was always about 'money and benefits.' Always.

If there was no money in it, nobody would care.

I disagree. That was the point I was trying to make above. Many didn't want to settle for what they considered a slight, calling it a legal union instead of a marriage. It had a lot to do with semantics.

 

[Tide1986]

Yet a gay marriage will never be equal to a heterosexual one, regardless of what the law says.

 

[81usaf92]

I disagree. That was the point I was trying to make above. Many didn't want to settle for what they considered a slight, calling it a legal union instead of a marriage. It had a lot to do with semantics.

I know when I say this Jon is going to jump right in because he strongly disagrees with anything that falls in favor with religious groups. But ask yourself, how much pushback would you really get had the government said that the law of the land is that the government will only acknowledge civil unions and marriage is a term reserved for individual interpretation or religious unity compared to what we have now? Sure there will be a little bitterness at first but both sides would've more than likely went their separate ways feeling that it was a decent compromise instead of feeling violated.

This has never been about equality of love but been about equality of benefits. So strawser, the mobile couple, and most every court lawsuit would've most likely taken a civil union if offered.

 

[Bamaro]

I know when I say this Jon is going to jump right in because he strongly disagrees with anything that falls in favor with religious groups. But ask yourself, how much pushback would you really get had the government said that the law of the land is that the government will only acknowledge civil unions and marriage is a term reserved for individual interpretation or religious unity compared to what we have now? Sure there will be a little bitterness at first but both sides would've more than likely went their separate ways feeling that it was a decent compromise instead of feeling violated.

This has never been about equality of love but been about equality of benefits. So strawser, the mobile couple, and most every court lawsuit would've most likely taken a civil union if offered.

I would say that it is about 'equal' recognition (aka marriage) and also benefits.

 

[81usaf92]

I would say that it is about 'equal' recognition (aka marriage) and also benefits.

Ok what's better small victories over time that provide the opposing side with education of what your side is and what it desires, or would you want instant change that creates radical opposition.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I disagree. That was the point I was trying to make above. Many didn't want to settle for what they considered a slight, calling it a legal union instead of a marriage. It had a lot to do with semantics.

Yeah, but the stupid thing with that is given the 'definition of marriage' (whatever that amorphous term now means in a legal sense), anyone can CALL what they have a marriage. But my point is this: if there wasn't money involved, this would not be the issue it became, plain and simple. Before SCOTUS ruled in June, gay couples could buy each other rings, have a full-fledged ceremony, buy a wedding cake (as long as they didn't buy it from one place in Oregon), make love, everything married couples do even calling one another husband, wife, or whatever. This already existed.

But go get it changed and then you can file your taxes and derive those 'extra benefits' at all levels (BAQ/VHA in the military, free health care for dependents). That's pretty much what changed (well, that and the public officials in positions to marry were now required to marry gay couples because it's recognized as such).


Let me be clear yet again: I've taken all manner of grief from folks on 'my side' through the years because I advocated the right of gay persons to adopt a child (being pro-life, it seemed the only consistent solution to me), leave their estate to whomever they wish (since it's impossible for two same sex people to have a natural-born heir with one another), and yes - even have hospital visitation rights, etc - all those things. I've even taken grief for pointing out that Christian friends I had in the 1980s ADVOCATED gay marriage to solve the AIDS crisis.

And no, not every single gay couple can be categorized one way or the other any more than any hetero couple can. But let's NOT pretend this was about freedom to love (which already existed) or any of the other surrounding things. Every single time there was a gay rights victory, CNN would have a guest op-ed (usually anonymous) demanding immediately the 'benefits' that go with things (e.g. the day DADT was repealed, there was immediately a demand in one op-ed for BAQ, health care, and 'all the benefits').

I'm not even arguing against the benefits - just don't pretend otherwise is all I'm saying (note this comment is rhetorical and not directed at Bamaro as if he is 'pretending' - just so we're clear).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I would say that it is about 'equal' recognition (aka marriage) and also benefits.

Where this is more applicable is situations where - and I would guess a place like San Fran would be a good example - where the benefits already existed. (I'm honestly NOT trying to stereotype here, Idk what the situation was/is - but I do know SF is rather liberal on that issue in an extreme direction).

This is hardly my favorite subject, and I think I'm done here. We likely have a difference of opinion and that's okay.

As far as the clerk, it does seem to me she either needs to resign or issue licenses. This is not a minister being asked to perform a gay wedding, which I would oppose. She's elected to a job and either needs to do it or quit.

 

[Tide1986]

I would say that it is about 'equal' recognition (aka marriage) and also benefits.

Again, there's legal recognition, which is not equal to societal recognition. Such marriages will never be viewed as totally equal in my opinion. Biologically speaking, they just can't be.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Again, there's legal recognition, which is not equal to societal recognition. Such marriages will never be viewed as totally equal in my opinion. Biologically speaking, they just can't be.

Society changes fast, my friend - and faster now more than ever before. There will be holdouts for sure, but in 10-20 years hardly anyone will even bat an eye.

 

[Tide1986]

Society changes fast, my friend - and faster now more than ever before. There will be holdouts for sure, but in 10-20 years hardly anyone will even bat an eye.

Methinks you miss my point.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Methinks you miss my point.

No, but more than the "definition" of marriage has changed through the years. The very nature of it has, and it didn't start recently. Marriage itself isn't equal to what it once was.

 

[Tide1986]

No, but more than the "definition" of marriage has changed through the years. The very nature of it has, and it didn't start recently. Marriage itself isn't equal to what it once was.

I am not disputing the "definition". Can you think of any practical differences between the typical heterosexual couple and a gay one?

 

[81usaf92]

Society changes fast, my friend - and faster now more than ever before. There will be holdouts for sure, but in 10-20 years hardly anyone will even bat an eye.

The problem is that fast forced social change is actually a bad thing because it begets a fast radical opposition. Small victories here and there where a society can learn to understand and accept differences is better in the long run. Somewhere within the 10-20 years the anti - gay opposition will find some legal loophole to discriminate and then we are talking about something else that pertains to this.

 

[92tide]

But no one here is saying that. So why don't you address the points people here are making instead of lumping us in with the crazies you find on a google search.

post 20, page 2, before the thread even crossed the poe's law event threshold

Obviously she should quit with all this fuss and just move on down to her seat at the back of the bus.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The problem is that fast forced social change is actually a bad thing because it begets a fast radical opposition. Small victories here and there where a society can learn to understand and accept differences is better in the long run. Somewhere within the 10-20 years the anti - gay opposition will find some legal loophole to discriminate and then we are talking about something else that pertains to this.

According to the law an injustice has heretofore been committed against homosecual couples by preventing them from marrying. When an injustice is done the only right thing to do is to right the wrong. In this case a fundamental right is deemed to have been abridged. That being the case, law cannot let the society dictate actions. If that were allowed Jim Crow laws would still be in effect because that wasn't changing anytime soon. It hadn't changed in 100 years and there was bitter resistance when change did happen. But it was the right thing to do. Period. Same here.

 

[Tide1986]

post 20, page 2, before the thread even crossed the poe's law event threshold

While your post mentions Rosa Parks, I believe its primary purpose is to lambast those who are "conflating the badness of slavery with gay marriage". My quip does not conflate those two issues, but it does point out that the rights of one group are being favored over those of another group. So I'll now refer you back to BB's last post in hopes that you'll find a brief moment of reflection and seriousness.