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

[cbi1972]

Can someone tell me why Rand Paul is being lumped with the hysterical far right on this issue?

 

[Jon]

Can someone tell me why Rand Paul is being lumped with the hysterical far right on this issue?

because he keeps repeating lie that Kim Davis was jailed for practicing her religion which is simply not true. She has been jailed for failing to do her job. She is completely free to practice her religion.

 

[cbi1972]

because he keeps repeating lie that Kim Davis was jailed for practicing her religion which is simply not true. She has been jailed for failing to do her job. She is completely free to practice her religion.

Rand Paul: Kentucky Clerk Should Not Have to Approve Gay Marriage Licenses

"Why couldn't we just have a notary public put their seal on it and the clerk would file it?" The Kentucky senator and GOP presidential candidate said. "My understanding is she'll file it as a contract. She just doesn't want to sign because that indicates her approval."

This is not about pushing religion for him. He's not squawking "war on Christians"

 

[92tide]

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.

to be clear, i am lambasting those who are conflating the badness of slavery with gay marriage and also the one's who are conflating what they see as an attack on religious liberties with civil rights.

the rights of one group are not being favored over those of another in this instance.

 

[TRUTIDE]

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.

Your argument makes the most sense for a solution here after the SCOTUS decided to put this new law into effect. The SCOTUS should not be bending to the PC crowd and should have stayed their role as a equal branch of govt. Now that they have taken this out of the State's rights arena, the States should just get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Leave marriage to the churches where it belongs anyway. The fed govt can issue all the civil documents it wants and honor the sister wives, Bruce Jenner, catholic priest and anyone else's sexual desires it wants to. Just not at the cost of religious liberty. We should not be a nation that would discriminate in allowing people to hold government positions based on their religious beliefs. Sacrificing our religious liberty for an over nite decision of five unelected jurist is not the direction this nation needs to be heading. Two or three of the judges sitting for this case had already presided over these same sex weddings. The SCOTUS has stopped serving their intended purpose. They have become activist partisans and a joke for even taking up cases like this.

 

[Tide1986]

the rights of one group are not being favored over those of another in this instance.

It's interesting whom you choose to believe when claims of infringed rights are made.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Your argument makes the most sense for a solution here after the SCOTUS decided to put this new law into effect. The SCOTUS should not be bending to the PC crowd and should have stayed their role as a equal branch of govt. Now that they have taken this out of the State's rights arena, the States should just get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Leave marriage to the churches where it belongs anyway. The fed govt can issue all the civil documents it wants and honor the sister wives, Bruce Jenner, catholic priest and anyone else's sexual desires it wants to. Just not at the cost of religious liberty. We should not be a nation that would discriminate in allowing people to hold government positions based on their religious beliefs. Sacrificing our religious liberty for an over nite decision of five unelected jurist is not the direction this nation needs to be heading. Two or three of the judges sitting for this case had already presided over these same sex weddings. The SCOTUS has stopped serving their intended purpose. They have become activist partisans and a joke for even taking up cases like this.

It's not a "law". It was found to be a fundamental right.

States don't have rights. They have powers.

The libertarian argument is to get the state out of the issue altogether. Either way, enforcing a marriage contract would still be necessary for the state to do.

IRG Kim Davis, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... Her name does does indicate her personal approval. It indicates that as an elected government bureaucrat she has confirmed that the proper paperwork and fees have been submitted to our government overlords. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Tidewater]

It's not a "law". It was found to be a fundamental right.

States don't have rights. They have powers.

The libertarian argument is to get the state out of the issue altogether. Either way, enforcing a marriage contract would still be necessary for the state to do.

IRG Kim Davis, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... Her name does does indicate her personal approval. It indicates that as an elected government bureaucrat she has confirmed that the proper paperwork and fees have been submitted to our government overlords. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I agree with this.
Those who get involved with this woman on "freedom of religion" grounds will end up (or are now being) embarrassed like Cliven Bundy's supporters.

The ruling in SCOTUS was an insult to the X Amendment and the doctrine of enumerated Federal powers, in pursuit of an imaginary and false interpretation of the XIV Amendment but she should issue the licenses or resign the office.

 

[Jon]

Your argument makes the most sense for a solution here after the SCOTUS decided to put this new law into effect. The SCOTUS should not be bending to the PC crowd and should have stayed their role as a equal branch of govt. Now that they have taken this out of the State's rights arena, the States should just get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Leave marriage to the churches where it belongs anyway. The fed govt can issue all the civil documents it wants and honor the sister wives, Bruce Jenner, catholic priest and anyone else's sexual desires it wants to. Just not at the cost of religious liberty. We should not be a nation that would discriminate in allowing people to hold government positions based on their religious beliefs. Sacrificing our religious liberty for an over nite decision of five unelected jurist is not the direction this nation needs to be heading. Two or three of the judges sitting for this case had already presided over these same sex weddings. The SCOTUS has stopped serving their intended purpose. They have become activist partisans and a joke for even taking up cases like this.

why should religion get to define marriage? Marriage has existed far longer than Christianity, far longer than Judaism and far longer than the concept of monotheism. Marriage exists between people in cultures that have never heard of Jesus and exists in cultures without the concept of an Abrahamic god. So why should you get to define it? You know that less than 200 years ago, in this country, marriage was still mostly arranged by parents, I don't see many wanting to go back to that "traditional definition of marriage"

and I didn't even respond to this post because "separate but equal" has been tried in the past and for some reason we never get the equal part of that equation to ever work right.

you want a term for marriage that only you get to use come up with one yourself.

 

[Timberline Tide]

Kim Davis has been ordered released from jail

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/breaking-kim-davis-to-be-released-from-jail/#ixzz3lAWTlIYQ
​

 

[Jon]

Kim Davis has been ordered released from jail

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/breaking-kim-davis-to-be-released-from-jail/#ixzz3lAWTlIYQ
​

interesting. I have no problems with this as long as she doesn't stop her clerks from issuing licenses

 

[81usaf92]

It's not a "law". It was found to be a fundamental right.

States don't have rights. They have powers.

The libertarian argument is to get the state out of the issue altogether. Either way, enforcing a marriage contract would still be necessary for the state to do.

IRG Kim Davis, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... Her name does does indicate her personal approval. It indicates that as an elected government bureaucrat she has confirmed that the proper paperwork and fees have been submitted to our government overlords. Nothing more. Nothing less.

why should religion get to define marriage? Marriage has existed far longer than Christianity, far longer than Judaism and far longer than the concept of monotheism. Marriage exists between people in cultures that have never heard of Jesus and exists in cultures without the concept of an Abrahamic god. So why should you get to define it? You know that less than 200 years ago, in this country, marriage was still mostly arranged by parents, I don't see many wanting to go back to that "traditional definition of marriage"

and I didn't even respond to this post because "separate but equal" has been tried in the past and for some reason we never get the equal part of that equation to ever work right.

you want a term for marriage that only you get to use come up with one yourself.

But on the flipside, why does the government get to define marriage when the constitution doesntot? The reason why is that they want full control of society so they can tax you.

My whole point is if the government took their common political correct stance and said in our eyes there is no such thing a "legally married" people, but we do view it as "civil unions" there would be far less strife because its a compromise and not an order.

As far as the separate but equal. Know this, Booker T Washington was all for the "separate but equal stance" because he felt that in time the whites and blacks would be able to coexist and in time be equal in all rights. Dubois favored extreme socialism and radical change. Under Dubois more racial violence and racial paranoia arose than it ever did with Booker T. When Dubois stood up against the Atlanta Compromise the NAACP used all means possible to promote Dubois in civil rights. SO really Booker's plan didn't really get a chance to see if it worked. I know the counter is "Well it worked when MLK brought down the establishment", but that comes from hindsight and thinking because one way worked the other way couldn't even though it was never given the momentum to work.

Im glad MLK brought down the establishment though, just for the record

 

[mittman]

why should religion get to define marriage? Marriage has existed far longer than Christianity, far longer than Judaism and far longer than the concept of monotheism. Marriage exists between people in cultures that have never heard of Jesus and exists in cultures without the concept of an Abrahamic god. So why should you get to define it? You know that less than 200 years ago, in this country, marriage was still mostly arranged by parents, I don't see many wanting to go back to that "traditional definition of marriage"

and I didn't even respond to this post because "separate but equal" has been tried in the past and for some reason we never get the equal part of that equation to ever work right.

you want a term for marriage that only you get to use come up with one yourself.

This has been hashed and rehashed. Everyone defines terms how they want to. If how a majority of people define it is not the accepted use we couldn't communicate effectively. It goes against your point to allow a small number of people redefine what the vast majority of people see as a religious union.

So lets say we DO accept YOUR definition of the term marriage as any union of any two (or multiples) of people (or whatever). What do you want us to start calling a union of a man and a woman as one entity in the eyes of the God we serve? The two are vastly different and need separate terms to define them.

 

[Jon]

This has been hashed and rehashed. Everyone defines terms how they want to. If how a majority of people define it is not the accepted use we couldn't communicate effectively. It goes against your point to allow a small number of people redefine what the vast majority of people see as a religious union.

So lets say we DO accept YOUR definition of the term marriage as any union of any two (or multiples) of people (or whatever). What do you want us to start calling a union of a man and a woman as one entity in the eyes of the God we serve? The two things are vastly different and need separate terms to define them.

i don't care what you call your union, makes no difference to me as long as you don't tell me or others what we get to call ours

 

[dvldog]

so you won't mind if we call yours a non-union?

 

[mittman]

i don't care what you call your union, makes no difference to me as long as you don't tell me or others what we get to call ours

I will continue to call it marriage then, but we will mean two completely different things when we use the term.

BTW; Everything I have tried to come up with to call non religious same sex unions keeps getting categorized as hate speech by the people around here that are trying to force me to accept their definition of the term.

 

[92tide]

This has been hashed and rehashed. Everyone defines terms how they want to. If how a majority of people define it is not the accepted use we couldn't communicate effectively. It goes against your point to allow a small number of people redefine what the vast majority of people see as a religious union.

So lets say we DO accept YOUR definition of the term marriage as any union of any two (or multiples) of people (or whatever). What do you want us to start calling a union of a man and a woman as one entity in the eyes of the God we serve? The two are vastly different and need separate terms to define them.

fwiw, i know many married gay couples that consider their marriages religious unions and they consider themselves as one entity in the eyes of god.

 

[mittman]

fwiw, i know many married gay couples that consider their marriages religious unions and they consider themselves as one entity in the eyes of god.

I get that. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I get it.

All anyone is saying is that the current accepted use of the term is being intentionally discombobulated for only one reason, forced acceptance. Anyone saying otherwise is not being honest (at least with themselves).

 

[Tidewater]

Anyone saying otherwise is not being honest (at least with themselves).

 

[92tide]

I get that. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I get it.

All anyone is saying is that the current accepted use of the term is being intentionally discombobulated for only one reason, forced acceptance. Anyone saying otherwise is not being honest (at least with themselves).

what you consider forced acceptance many consider equal treatment in the eyes of the law