Gay Marriage is GO...

[moevillini]

some more info:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear previously has told county clerks resistant to issuing same-sex marriage licenses to resign. Another couple has filed a misdemeanor official-misconduct complaint against Davis with Kentucky's attorney general, and Jack Conway, now running as the Democratic nominee for governor in this conservative state, will decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor.

As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired, but federal Judge David Bunning, who previously ordered her to stop denying marriage licenses, can impose potentially heavy fines and jail time. She could be impeached but the state Legislature is not in session and many lawmakers support her position.

The Kentucky County Clerk's Association has proposed legislation to remove the issuing of marriage licenses from county clerks' duties, relegating it to the state. County clerks now record and keep various legal records, including vehicle, hunting, fishing and marriage licenses; mortgages, deeds and liens; and voter-registration forms.

So she could refuse to record a deed for a same sex couple buying a house too, because it violates her beliefs?

 

[♪alt13]

some more info:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/



So she could refuse to record a deed for a same sex couple buying a house too, because it violates her beliefs?

I find it hard to blame the liberal universities and the youth for the hypersensitivity and entitledness of our society. The problem goes way beyond 20 something liberals.

This person is behaving like a child. The way I see it she has 2 options.

Suck it up and do her job according to the law
or
resign in protest.

 

[Stoked]

some more info:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/



So she could refuse to record a deed for a same sex couple buying a house too, because it violates her beliefs?

What I'd like to see is here now refuse to issue hunting licenses based on religious belief and see how long it takes to get her out of office.

 

[Siro]

These people's actions are in conflict with my religious beliefs that they should do their ****ing job or step the **** aside and let someone else do it.

 

[Stoked]

These people's actions are in conflict with my religious beliefs that they should do their ****ing job or step the **** aside and let someone else do it.

I agree. As a public servant, who is paid thru the taxes paid by the public, her religious belief should never come into play. She should be impeached, fined, held in contempt of court and ordered to pay back all wages received since the date the Supreme Court approved "gay marriage".

Shameful that KY is letting this go down like this.

 

[moevillini]

I've read a little bit about her own background.
As Ricky Ricardo would say, she's got "some 'splaining to do!"

Married 4 times, married her fourth husband while she was pregnant with child from husband #3 or some such ish - - but found GOD a couple of years ago and has been "born again" and knows that GOD is on HER SIDE and forgives her for EVERYTHING SHE DOES.


(but I'm a little ashamed of myself that I'm letting her personal life influence my feelings towards her...)

 

[Harambe]

I've read a little bit about her own background.
As Ricky Ricardo would say, she's got "some 'splaining to do!"

Married 4 times, married her fourth husband while she was pregnant with child from husband #3 or some such ish - - but found GOD a couple of years ago and has been "born again" and knows that GOD is on HER SIDE and forgives her for EVERYTHING SHE DOES.


(but I'm a little ashamed of myself that I'm letting her personal life influence my feelings towards her...)

You're such a bad person.

(read; it was only a matter of time before someone looked into her past, you weren't the first)

 

[Stoked]

I've read a little bit about her own background.
As Ricky Ricardo would say, she's got "some 'splaining to do!"

Married 4 times, married her fourth husband while she was pregnant with child from husband #3 or some such ish - - but found GOD a couple of years ago and has been "born again" and knows that GOD is on HER SIDE and forgives her for EVERYTHING SHE DOES.


(but I'm a little ashamed of myself that I'm letting her personal life influence my feelings towards her...)

I see nothing overtly odd in her finding God later in life. Many people do. Also she joined and became active in her religion after her divorce. Based on the strict interpretation she has of the bible (now) I'd think she looks back on those divorces as sin.

Either way this is a disgrace imo.

Allowing people to openly and directly refuse to comply with the courts lessens the power of the courts. Who will be the next to refuse to comply and about what?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Then when is the Canadian Supreme court going to ban cigarettes, alcohol and fast food?

Those are private actions/decisions one take that don't involve or affect (directly at least) others. Nobody is coerced into smoking, drinking or eating unhealthy foods. Polygamy, however, is not a private act, but is something that involves others, often women or young girls who are coerced into it, while also harming disempowered male members of religious communities who cannot compete with the alpha males for wives.

Not to mention that sexual orientation is an inherent, immutable part of one's personality, while polygamy is a learned behavior and socially created institution.

Apple and oranges my friend. Apples and oranges.

Let me add also that fear of possible downstream complications is not a sufficient reason (nor even a valid reason) to deny a group of citizens their full set of civil/Constitutional rights and liberties.

 

[Siro]

Those are private actions/decisions one take that don't involve or affect (directly at least) others. Nobody is coerced into smoking, drinking or eating unhealthy foods. Polygamy, however, is not a private act, but is something that involves others, often women or young girls who are coerced into it, while also harming disempowered male members of religious communities who cannot compete with the alpha males for wives.

Not to mention that sexual orientation is an inherent, immutable part of one's personality, while polygamy is a learned behavior and socially created institution.

Apple and oranges my friend. Apples and oranges.

Polygamy is not inherently any of those things. If a bunch of adult men and women choose to marry one another, what's the problem? They made the same arguments about homosexuality. It involves others. They can target children, specially to turn them (I can even link you the 1950s PSAs that showed men picking up teenage boys to "corrupt them").

The choice part is irrelevant, as well. If you have the right to marry a person if you're attracted to them, as long as they consent, why can't you do the same to two people you're attracted to?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Polygamy is not inherently any of those things. If a bunch of adult men and women choose to marry one another, what's the problem? They made the same arguments about homosexuality. It involves others. They can target children, specially to turn them (I can even link you the 1950s PSAs that showed men picking up teenage boys to "corrupt them").

The choice part is irrelevant, as well. If you have the right to marry a person if you're attracted to them, as long as they consent, why can't you do the same to two people you're attracted to?

I very respectively disagree. IF polygamy is constitutionally allowed, its primary practitioners will be fundamentalist religious groups, and any reasonable observance of these groups finds that such abuses are inherent to how they operate.

Moreover, perhaps an even more important point is that polygamy is a choice/learned behavior and is not an immutable part of one's self, whereas sexual orientation is, much like race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Discrimination against the former is a very different thing and is justifiable in any number of cases, whereas discrimination in the latter is not justifiable, or is justifiable under only very limited circumstances with a very high hurdle to justify.

 

[Siro]

I very respectively disagree. IF polygamy is constitutionally allowed, its primary practitioners will be fundamentalist religious groups, and any reasonable observance of these groups finds that such abuses are inherent to how they operate.

Moreover, perhaps an even more important point is that polygamy is a choice/learned behavior and is not an immutable part of one's self, whereas sexual orientation is, much like race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Discrimination against the former is a very different thing and is justifiable in any number of cases, whereas discrimination in the latter is not justifiable, or is justifiable under only very limited circumstances with a very high hurdle to justify.

Again, you're not giving a satisfying objective answer to why polygamy is immoral. You argument is basically "look at polygamists. They're bad". This is like conservatives who make the argument that a disproportionate number of serial killers are homosexuals, thus making homosexuality the cause of serial killing. We live in a country where polygamy is illegal, and thus only underground groups, who tend to be outside of mainstream norms, practice it.

And you keep bringing up choice, for some incomprehensible reason. Choice has nothing to do with anything. Gay marriage shouldn't be prevented not because "aw, poor things. They can't help what they are. Just let them get married if they want. It's not like they're hurting anyone". It is because nobody has the right to decide for someone else who they're allowed to **** or spend part/all of their lives with.

Right now polygamy is illegal, and so is having sex with a minor under a certain age. Fundamentalist groups you mentioned ignore both laws anyway. Making polygamy legal, while making it so that you have to be above the age of majority to get married (as it should be anyway), does not change how these fundamentalists operate. They can still get prosecuted for marrying an underage person, and they wouldn't be for marrying more than one adult, because there is no objective moral reason that they should be.

Another thing I want to say about the choice argument, is that it's ******** anyway. Marriage is a choice. Who you marry is a choice. For MANY people, even the sex of those you marry is a choice (called bisexual). And even if the whole thing was a choice, it CHANGES NOTHING. Homosexual marriage should still be legal even if homosexuality was a choice.