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

[mittman]

I'm not sure what you are asking anymore. What I want and what I would be justified in imposing on others are not the same thing at all.

I will try to ask it a different way.

Do you think using the term marriage for their unions whether religious or not has at its root getting society at large accept those unions?

I feel the same way as you do on the last sentence. My personal opinion is that God allows people to do as they wish and suffer the consequences. While I want to live in a society that embraces what I believe and tries to live by the Bible, I do accept that has never been the normal case in the history of the world. However, I am lucky enough to live in a country that in the past was built (however imperfectly) on a lot of those principles, don't want to see it go away, and will vote and voice my opinion as long as I can.

 

[cbi1972]

I will try to ask it a different way.

Do you think using the term marriage for their unions whether religious or not has at its root getting society at large accept those unions?

I feel the same way as you do on the last sentence. My personal opinion is that God allows people to do as they wish and suffer the consequences. While I want to live in a society that embraces what I believe and tries to live by the Bible, I do accept that has never been the normal case in the history of the world. However, I am lucky enough to live in a country that in the past was built (however imperfectly) on a lot of those principles, don't want to see it go away, and will vote and voice my opinion as long as I can.

I'd say it's more complicated than that. The issue really is about what the essence of a marriage is. Is it about love, respect, and commitment? Is it about tax deductions, inheritance, and hospital visitation? Is it about compatible reproductive organs?

Those that believe that marriage is about love, respect, and commitment first and foremost have a legitimate resentment of attempts to degrade that relationship with arbitrary terminology.

But more importantly, the essence of marriage has evolved. Even a biblical view of marriage has internal contradictions. Abraham had multiple wives. So did David, "a man after God’s own heart." By the time the New Testament rolled around, monogamy was the norm. (You can thank the Romans for that). Divorce and remarriage is now commonplace and accepted by most Christians, whereas it is regarded as a sin, biblically. The assertion that any of us has an exclusive authoritative claim on the definition of marriage is arrogant self-righteous projection.

So for at least some people, it's less about acceptance by others, and more about rejection of their authority to define the nature of relationships.

 

[mittman]

I'd say it's more complicated than that. The issue really is about what the essence of a marriage is. Is it about love, respect, and commitment? Is it about tax deductions, inheritance, and hospital visitation? Is it about compatible reproductive organs?

Those that believe that marriage is about love, respect, and commitment first and foremost have a legitimate resentment of attempts to degrade that relationship with arbitrary terminology.

But more importantly, the essence of marriage has evolved. Even a biblical view of marriage has internal contradictions. Abraham had multiple wives. So did David, "a man after God’s own heart." By the time the New Testament rolled around, monogamy was the norm. (You can thank the Romans for that). Divorce and remarriage is now commonplace and accepted by most Christians, whereas it is regarded as a sin, biblically. The assertion that any of us has an exclusive authoritative claim on the definition of marriage is arrogant self-righteous projection.

So for at least some people, it's less about acceptance by others, and more about rejection of their authority to define the nature of relationships.

Fair enough.

I don't disagree with any of this. Edit: With the exception that the Romans instituted monogamy.

However, you really didn't answer my question. Whatever people have seen marriage as in the past, including people recorded in the bible who were not doing what God established, IMO has no bearing on the current argument. For the entirety of our country's history it has been understood to mean a specific thing.

Again, I don't have the authority to define a term, or change it's definition any more than the next guy. To the point of your first sentence. It is pretty clear which ones are moral/religious terms and which are governing/secular terms. It WAS pretty clear which one the term marriage was.

IF there are two separate constructs, one for defining how government handles communal property, tax deductions, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. And another construct for religious entities to use (whether or not that group recognizes a same sex construct) the problem is solved. IMO that is all most people from a religious point of view are asking for. The insistence on using that term blocks that possibility, and it is pretty obvious that it is intended to block it.

 

[Tide1986]

I'd say it's more complicated than that. The issue really is about what the essence of a marriage is. Is it about love, respect, and commitment? Is it about tax deductions, inheritance, and hospital visitation? Is it about compatible reproductive organs?

Those that believe that marriage is about love, respect, and commitment first and foremost have a legitimate resentment of attempts to degrade that relationship with arbitrary terminology.

But more importantly, the essence of marriage has evolved. Even a biblical view of marriage has internal contradictions. Abraham had multiple wives. So did David, "a man after God’s own heart." By the time the New Testament rolled around, monogamy was the norm. (You can thank the Romans for that). Divorce and remarriage is now commonplace and accepted by most Christians, whereas it is regarded as a sin, biblically. The assertion that any of us has an exclusive authoritative claim on the definition of marriage is arrogant self-righteous projection.

So for at least some people, it's less about acceptance by others, and more about rejection of their authority to define the nature of relationships.

Yet a relationship that is about love, respect, and commitment first and foremost requires no ceremony in a church, requires no government paperwork, requires no contract, and requires no acceptance or endorsement by anyone else.

 

[cbi1972]

Fair enough.

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, you really didn't answer my question. Whatever people have seen marriage as in the past, including people recorded in the bible who were not doing what God established, IMO has no bearing on the current argument. For the entirety of our country's history it has been understood to mean a specific thing.

Again, I don't have the authority to define a term, or change it's definition any more than the next guy. To the point of your first sentence. It is pretty clear which ones are moral/religious terms and which are governing/secular terms. It WAS pretty clear which one the term marriage was.

IF there are two separate constructs, one for defining how government handles communal property, tax deductions, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. And another construct for religious entities to use (whether or not that group recognizes a same sex construct) the problem is solved. IMO that is all most people from a religious point of view are asking for. The hesitance on using that term blocks that possibility, and it is pretty obvious that it is intended to block it.

I object in principle to the idea that marriage belongs exclusively in the religious domain.

 

[Jon]

Fair enough.

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, you really didn't answer my question. Whatever people have seen marriage as in the past, including people recorded in the bible who were not doing what God established, IMO has no bearing on the current argument. For the entirety of our country's history it has been understood to mean a specific thing.

Again, I don't have the authority to define a term, or change it's definition any more than the next guy. To the point of your first sentence. It is pretty clear which ones are moral/religious terms and which are governing/secular terms. It WAS pretty clear which one the term marriage was.

IF there are two separate constructs, one for defining how government handles communal property, tax deductions, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. And another construct for religious entities to use (whether or not that group recognizes a same sex construct) the problem is solved. IMO that is all most people from a religious point of view are asking for. The hesitance on using that term blocks that possibility, and it is pretty obvious that it is intended to block it.

see the part I bolded? that statement is simply wrong. It wasn't until 1967 that two people of different races could even marry or have their marriages held as legal in many states and that took the supreme court as well. Arranged marriages still exist in this country though not as prominent as they once were they still do. Were do you even get the idea that it meant one specific thing?

 

[Jon]

Yet a relationship that is about love, respect, and commitment first and foremost requires no ceremony in a church, requires no government paperwork, requires no contract, and requires no acceptance or endorsement by anyone else.

exactly but sadly without the Government paperwork my wife and I are strangers as far as the law is concerned and we have no right to make decisions for one another. And my stuff does not become hers without it

 

[Tide1986]

see the part I bolded? that statement is simply wrong. It wasn't until 1967 that two people of different races could even marry or have their marriages held as legal in many states and that took the supreme court as well. Arranged marriages still exist in this country though not as prominent as they once were they still do. Were do you even get the idea that it meant one specific thing?

He probably means the marriage of a man and a woman. In that context, he is correct.

But, if we wish to quibble, even today marriage is not a specific thing because neither the minimum allowable age nor the degree of relationship for marriage is uniform across the various states. And of course, I assume you know that interracial marriage itself existed prior to 1967 -- such marriages were legal in several states.

 

[Tide1986]

exactly but sadly without the Government paperwork my wife and I are strangers as far as the law is concerned and we have no right to make decisions for one another. And my stuff does not become hers without it

Marriage would be one way to achieve the things you noted, but not the only way.

 

[Jon]

He probably means the marriage of a man and a woman. In that context, he is correct.

But, if we wish to quibble, even today marriage is not a specific thing because neither the minimum allowable age nor the degree of relationship for marriage is uniform across the various states. And of course, I assume you know that interracial marriage itself existed prior to 1967 -- such marriages were legal in several states.

that's why I had the word or in that sentence, because while legal in some places it most certainly wasn't everywhere, nor were legal marriages always honored from state to state.

and I knew what he was trying to say and understood his context. But narrowing the context doesn't make his statement correct.

 

[Jon]

Marriage would be one way to achieve the things you noted, but not the only way.

no, but its the only way that can be explained quickly, honored and upheld quickly in somewhere where time is of the essence, like an emergency room. "Wait to triage that one doc, I need to review a large complex legal document to see if this woman here has the right to make decisions for that one" is not something I want to happen in my ER's

 

[Tide1986]

no, but its the only way that can be explained quickly, honored and upheld quickly in somewhere where time is of the essence, like an emergency room. "Wait to triage that one doc, I need to review a large complex legal document to see if this woman here has the right to make decisions for that one" is not something I want to happen in my ER's

Even marriage is not an easy, quick solution for inheritance when the decedent dies intestate (without a will). Intestate succession varies by state, and the wife or husband will not necessarily receive what you might expect.

 

[mittman]

see the part I bolded? that statement is simply wrong. It wasn't until 1967 that two people of different races could even marry or have their marriages held as legal in many states and that took the supreme court as well. Arranged marriages still exist in this country though not as prominent as they once were they still do. Were do you even get the idea that it meant one specific thing?

You are illustrating my point.

Of course the two things are different. Different religious groups define marriage differently. While yes the government did not allow interracial marriages, until Mormonism came along the primarily Christian nation knew what it meant. Like what usually happens with government stupid laws trying to take advantage of the construct caused the problems.

Like I have said repeatedly. Two old Christian ladies living together should be able to enter in a agreement to provide everything you are asking for with gay couples. The insistence on going further than that is causing the issue.

Back to the topic at hand, I doubt seriously that there would have been issues with this or any other court if the law was written this way.

 

[cbi1972]

Different religious groups define marriage differently.

This seems to support the idea of a less narrow definition.

 

[Tide1986]

This seems to support the idea of a less narrow definition.

Or that religions as a whole yield diversity in the definition of marriage.

 

[mittman]

I object in principle to the idea that marriage belongs exclusively in the religious domain.

I will fight and have fought to allow you to have that opinion, state that opinion and not be persecuted for doing so.

That does not change the facts of the matter and the agenda being pushed. It also does not change anything I have said. Two guys want to get together and even call it marriage, have at it. Two guys believe their religion allows it and have others that believe likewise. Again have at it have a religious ceremony. Sure I am going to continue to state my belief in what the God I believe in instituted, but I can live with that.

Any group of people want to join property and set up a civil union have at it. It is a different thing and should be called such.

Again, this is not what is happening and being pushed for. I don't see anyone saying that they would be satisfied with that from the other side, in fact it tends to make them more staunch in their approach and sometimes very angry. It is not universal like I think the push for acceptance is, but plenty of those pushing for it have told me specifically that I should not be allowed to have my opinion.

 

[81usaf92]

A rose by any other name...

So many wrongs were done in the name of compromise in the arena of civil rights. It would have been far better for the country to just accept that the world had changed and then move on than to spend all the time, energy, money, and blood that was spent on keeping someone else from prospering. The South was held back for 100 years by racist idiots who pandered to those in power (who were more concerned with their own pocketbooks and warped sense of morality) by using the power of the government to deprive black people (and the poor whites) of their natural rights.

And for the record , the Constitution does NOT enumerate (or name) rights. That line of thinking is why some opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights and why the 9th Amendment was added to it. The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes that rights are inherent to the people and not granted by the government. It is why the courts will reason that a law is unconstitutional because it violates a right protected by the Constitution even though that right is never spelled out in the Constitution itself. And trust me when I say that applies much more to areas where you agree with the court's decision than when you don't.

Again, you can argue from that point of view because you know the outcome 40 something years later. Booker T's compromise was rejected by the NAACP because people like Dubois blasted because they believed in all rights now, and most of the NAACP and African Americans didn't strongly follow the separate but equal ideals. The whole idea of separate but equal was to slowly but methodically integrate blacks into US society and be accepted as first class citizens after enough people woke up. Dubois constantly badgering the courts and turning to communist and extreme socialists views created radical paranoia that made politicans and your everyday citizen buy into the beliefs of the KKK and the Aryan brotherhood. It also didn't help that it created equally radical groups on the African American side such as the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers that where paranoid that African American rights were not going to happen without force. Thank God, or whatever you believe, that MLK had a non violent group that broke through the chaos. Im not saying separate but equal would've worked, or worked better, but more or less we really don't know because the NAACP never backed it after Booker T helped with the Atlanta conference, but I can point out that DADT actually made the military more aware of gays and less against the repeal and less opposed to the gays than the civilian community on the issue.

As far as the constitution, the vagueness of amendments prior to the 20th century can be interpreted a multitude of ways depending on who is reading them. The 1st and 2nd are good examples. Also what constitutes as a speedy trial. I guess someone could argue that they believe a speedy trial should be a week after their alledged crime.

 

[TRUTIDE]

The Constitution does enumerate Federal powers, in an inclusive manner, meaning, that that the failure to enumerate a particular power means that the power in question was specifically denied the general government. This means that the Founder knew that the failure to delegate a particular power could be rectified via the amendment process, and the failure to amend meant denial of the power in question. The failure to win the amendment debate means denial. An idea the left HATES. They state, (in effect), "I can't win the debate, so want to be declared the winner by default."

Maybe off topic (or maybe back on topic)...what about the 10th amendment? Certainly laws can be created through the amendment process but marraige is not addressed in the constitution. The states had previously had the power to define marraige. This woman was elected to enforce a certain set of laws defined by the state of KY. (man and woman). We put a woman in jail for doing a job she was elected to do. She was not put in jail for civil rights violations. She was put in jail for breaking a law somehow created by 5 unelected judges of the SCOTUS. Five unelected judges are changing laws for a whole country? If anything the Governor of KY should have been held responsible for not allowing for an accommodation for this woman.

How come no elected officials have been put in jail for allowing MJ in certain states? What about elected officials ignoring immigration laws by creating sanctuary cities. Even with recent murders of American citizens, I have not seen any arrest. What about a POTUS that continuously ignores established laws. I have not seen any consequences for him or his administration. Certainly nobody has been locked up. I dealt with highly classified information in the military and would have immediately faced serious trouble had I done an inkling of what has been found on our former SOS. Some seem giddy when a Christian gets sued for living their religious beliefs in private business or when a Christian woman (democrat even) gets thrown in jail for following her religious beliefs and performing the job description she was elected to perform. What may seem like a glaring victory for the LGBT supporters is actually a Hit to the freedoms and liberties that we have always adored.

 

[TRUTIDE]

that's why I had the word or in that sentence, because while legal in some places it most certainly wasn't everywhere, nor were legal marriages always honored from state to state.

and I knew what he was trying to say and understood his context. But narrowing the context doesn't make his statement correct.

I think this was more by design than by accident. I do think that the Framers respected the sovereignty of the states in getting away from a centralized government like they left in Britain.. I would not want one centralized power defining every aspect of my life. I like being able to move to whatever area of the country that most reflects my preferred culture and beliefs. The SCOTUS is making this harder and harder to do by creating these one size fits all laws. The congress has the ability and power to create such laws when needed. Everything else should be left to the states to implement what best suits its inhabitants.

 

[Jon]

I think this was more by design than by accident. I do think that the Framers respected the sovereignty of the states in getting away from a centralized government like they left in Britain.. I would not want one centralized power defining every aspect of my life. I like being able to move to whatever area of the country that most reflects my preferred culture and beliefs. The SCOTUS is making this harder and harder to do by creating these one size fits all laws. The congress has the ability and power to create such laws when needed. Everything else should be left to the states to implement what best suits its inhabitants.

I completely agree, except in the areas of fundamental rights. This entire thing falls apart if the States don't have some common ground and as we've already seen different fundamental rights from one state to another simply doesn't work. There are plenty of cases that show this clearly. For instance the gay man who passed away on a trip home to Alabama years ago where his legal husband (wedded in a legal state) was barred from any decision making on funeral and even denied access to his husbands service, all perfectly legally the deceased parents and backed by force of law of the State. Can you imagine being pushed to the side in such a circumstance?