KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[zoobie]

Can that job be redefined Constitutionally in a way that conflicts with another Constitutional protection? No.

Yes. It has and will continue to do so. People can believe whatever they want. That's freedom of religion. There are people who believe women should not be able to vote or drive or hold office. When the 19th Amendment finally passed, registrars had to issue voting cards to women, no matter what their religious beliefs. When prohibition ended, people had to do their government jobs relating to alcohol no matter what their religions said about alcohol. Their choice is, was, and has been to do their jobs and uphold their oaths or resign. It's very, very simple.

[zoobie]

As of a couple of years ago, yes, the definition has changed secularly.

 

It has never and will never change biblically. It doesn't matter where we go with it....and we are off on that trail.

Biblical marriage has had several forms. I really don't want to marry my husband's brother. I wouldn't be a good sister wife either. I'm so very thankful we don't live in a theocracy.

[LucyStoner]

It has never and will never change biblically.

It is unbiblical to grant divorces except in one instance. Christ himself said that remarriage after divorce except in one instance is a sin. Should we ban divorces and remarriages? It seems to me the civil definition of marriage has diverged from the biblical one since the bible was written in one way or the other.

 

It also seems people like Kim Davis are ok redefining biblical marriage when it suits their purposes but want one particular definition applied regardless of if the couple in question has those religious beliefs or not.

[poppy]

Because it is the intrinsic meaning of marriage. the joining of a man and a woman together in matrimony.   It is protected and privileged virtually entirely for children, their birth, their rearing, and their protection.  (Though it is true some are infertile, some are too old, etc, but it does not change the purpose). 

 

We all used to know this. 

 

Granted, people haven't done a stellar job, but that doesn't change the purpose.

 

Over half of all Americans are obese too, but that doesn't change the purpose of fitness and proper consumption of food.

 

We all used to know that blacks should marry blacks and whites should marry whites.  It was both law and commonly believed for most of US history.  Anti-miscengation laws were perfectly legal less than 50 years ago.  Why is this different?

 

Quote from the court case that led to the 1967 ruling.

 

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

 

This judge ruled that the young couple had a choice of a year in prison or leaving the state of Virginia, meaning leave their families and jobs. This lead to the Loving vs Virginia ruling, which was quite controversial at the time.

 

I am baffled why gay marriage is seen as so very different.  Obviously most people in the US do not think interracial marriage is Biblically and culturally forbidden anymore, but the arguments for biblical justification and legal precedent were the nearly identical to the anti-gay-marriage arguments now.

[goldberry]

When Alabama finally formally removed the section of their constitution which banned interracial marriage, it went to the voters. A full FORTY percent of voters voted no, to not remove it. In 2000.

 

I am left speechless.  That is insane.

 

But an excellent example of why human rights issues should not be left to a popular vote. 

[Ipsey]

Equating a bunch of non-equivalent issues  - like rock music -  with the truth of what marriage is is just ridiculous and you know it.   There is absolutely no fear when one does what his conscience requires, and it is confusing that you find it fearful.  I guess it was for you, back when you were a Catholic, but this isn't reality.

 

 

The "truth of what marriage is?"  By whose definition?  If you think that your "one man, one woman for life" is and has been the "truth" of marriage since forever, then I can see YOUR confusion.

 

Here's an excellent article by a professor of Ancient Near East studies who discusses marriage in ancient Greece and in some Native American societies. (The writer is of a Northern US tribe).  Really fascinating. 

 

http://awomanscholar.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-early-church-redefined-marriage.html

 

Also, a quick look at Wikipedia will show that your understanding of marriage is pretty limited and rather hubristic when taking into account cultural understandings of marriage throughout the world and time.

[albeto.]

Equating a bunch of non-equivalent issues  - like rock music -  with the truth of what marriage is is just ridiculous and you know it.   There is absolutely no fear when one does what his conscience requires, and it is confusing that you find it fearful.  I guess it was for you, back when you were a Catholic, but this isn't reality.

 

You have a selective memory if you ignore the arguments about the loss of xianity being linked to crime and degradation of society. Report after report of the dangers of homosexuality, everything from personal health (the average gay man dies what, twenty years earlier than the average straight man was it?), to social health (AIDS), to health and welfare of children (pedophilia apparently being the sport of choice for the gay man). Josh Duggar only stopped warning America about the dangers to society of homosexuals and transexuals when he got caught acting out - and paying for - sexual deviancy.  The fear-mongering surrounding homosexuality, and the consequent alarm that marriage will somehow seal the deal against morality, turning a corner America will never be able to turn back from, isn't my brainchild. I didn't come up with this stuff, and it's really not hard to find it. Off the top of my head, I can think of Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, Glenn Beck, sex education lessons rampant throughout the bible belt, and just about every conservative evangelical, baptist, or non denominational church out there that advocates the importance of praying away the gay. These things are all referred to when arguing the importance of maintaining a biblical definition of marriage. The correlation is consistent, and it's pervasive. 

[bibiche]

And newly discovered rights at that! Because back in the good old days, gays were kept in the closet, away from those pesky legal rights.

 

It's all part of the Gay Agenda, you know.

 

Watch out, the rainbow is coming for you!

End times are nigh, for sure. 😉

[LucyStoner]

I am left speechless. That is insane.

 

But an excellent example of why human rights issues should not be left to a popular vote.

I went to college with a girl from Alabama. When that was on the ballot, I remember saying that of course it would pass with all but a consensus and she was like "don't be so sure about that Katie!"

[TranquilMind]

Yes. It has and will continue to do so. People can believe whatever they want. That's freedom of religion. There are people who believe women should not be able to vote or drive or hold office. When the 19th Amendment finally passed, registrars had to issue voting cards to women, no matter what their religious beliefs. When prohibition ended, people had to do their government jobs relating to alcohol no matter what their religions said about alcohol. Their choice is, was, and has been to do their jobs and uphold their oaths or resign. It's very, very simple.

No.  Truth cannot be changed, though it was.  It doesn't matter that it was.

 

The other is irrelevant.  God does not speak to women voting.  Irrelevant. 

 

Drunkenness is wrong and damaging anyway, regardless of the current law on it.  It is not biblically proscribed, though many Christians would not choose to work in those related industries.   

[BrookValley.]

Equating a bunch of non-equivalent issues - like rock music - with the truth of what marriage is is just ridiculous and you know it. There is absolutely no fear when one does what his conscience requires, and it is confusing that you find it fearful. I guess it was for you, back when you were a Catholic, but this isn't reality.

So, who gets to decide the "truth of what marriage is"? Because obviously my truth and your truth are two very different things. So why or by what means is yours the truth?

 

Keep in mind we do not live in a theocracy, so one specific religion or interpretation of any specific religious texts is not relevant.

 

Or do you support the idea of a theocracy?

[TranquilMind]

You have a selective memory if you ignore the arguments about the loss of xianity being linked to crime and degradation of society. Report after report of the dangers of homosexuality, everything from personal health (the average gay man dies what, twenty years earlier than the average straight man was it?), to social health (AIDS), to health and welfare of children (pedophilia apparently being the sport of choice for the gay man). Josh Duggar only stopped warning America about the dangers to society of homosexuals and transexuals when he got caught acting out - and paying for - sexual deviancy.  The fear-mongering surrounding homosexuality, and the consequent alarm that marriage will somehow seal the deal against morality, turning a corner America will never be able to turn back from, isn't my brainchild. I didn't come up with this stuff, and it's really not hard to find it. Off the top of my head, I can think of Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, Glenn Beck, sex education lessons rampant throughout the bible belt, and just about every conservative evangelical, baptist, or non denominational church out there that advocates the importance of praying away the gay. These things are all referred to when arguing the importance of maintaining a biblical definition of marriage. The correlation is consistent, and it's pervasive. 

You mean Christianity, not "xianity", I presume?  I don't demean your nonbelief.  You are free to believe what you want, erroneous as it is or is not. 

 

 

I'm really not going to stoop to discussing non-relevant examples of "bad Christians" you drag out to support yet another diatribe against "the evils of Christianity", one of your all-time favorite topics since departing the Catholic Church, post TS. 

 

Yes, Josh Duggar, molesting priests, and ministers in the pulpit who look at porn before they go preach all exist. and judgment is coming down on the heads of all of them, now or in the future, if they don't repent and turn from sin.  They know they are sinning when they do it, yet somehow think they are above getting caught, and they all get caught, sooner or later.

Lots of bad atheists exist as well and they will be exposed as well.

 

This is entirely irrelevant to this issue. 

[goldberry]

Quote from Merry Gardens - sorry quote didn't work for some reason

because conservative justices don't just re-interpret the meaning of the words used by our founders and the people who passed amendments to the constitution to wipe out laws they don't like and to re-write laws to make them say whatever it is they want them to say.

 

 

Conservative justices reinterpreted the meaning of "person" to mean "corporation" and the meaning of "speech" to mean "money".    You really think that doesn't happen on the conservative side?

[TranquilMind]

We all used to know that blacks should marry blacks and whites should marry whites.  It was both law and commonly believed for most of US history.  Anti-miscengation laws were perfectly legal less than 50 years ago.  Why is this different?

 

Quote from the court case that led to the 1967 ruling.

 

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

 

This judge ruled that the young couple had a choice of a year in prison or leaving the state of Virginia, meaning leave their families and jobs. This lead to the Loving vs Virginia ruling, which was quite controversial at the time.

 

I am baffled why gay marriage is seen as so very different.  Obviously most people in the US do not think interracial marriage is Biblically and culturally forbidden anymore, but the arguments for biblical justification and legal precedent were the nearly identical to the anti-gay-marriage arguments now.

Inapposite comparison. Already addressed. 

[idnib]

Can that job be redefined Constitutionally  in a way that conflicts with another Constitutional protection?   No.

 

Apologies, but I can't tell if your "no" is answering my question or your own.  :o

[Word Nerd]

nm

[zoobie]

No. Truth cannot be changed, though it was. It doesn't matter that it was.

 

The other is irrelevant. God does not speak to women voting. Irrelevant.

 

Drunkenness is wrong and damaging anyway, regardless of the current law on it. It is not biblically proscribed, though many Christians would not choose to work in those related industries.

You're talking about YOUR religion. Other people have different religious beliefs. Many claimed a religious (Biblical!) basis for discriminating against or enslaving black people. Many claimed religious beliefs for keeping women silent and in the home. Churches were very, very active against the suffrage movement, citing Biblical authority and condemning the movement as socialism designed to cripple good Christians. Islam, among other religions, speaks against alcohol. It may not be your "truth," but your religious beliefs are not the barometer of Truthiness. There is no way for the law to validate religious beliefs as The Truth (thank goodness!), so anyone can claim a religious exception to just about anything.

 

Claiming that Christians didn't use their religion, their pulpits, and their interpretations of the Bible to repress civil rights of black people and women is simply delusional. It's not remotely true. Just because you don't find their arguments compelling here in 2015 does not erase the fact that many (not all) mainstream Christians, not some weird fringe Westboro type groups, spoke out against these issues using the same vehemence as you use against gay marriage today.

[FaithManor]

It's a self-created quandary. She took an oath to uphold a constitution that is a living document. It's not the 10 Commandments and carved in stone. Well, theoretical stone. If her religious beliefs prevent her from continuing to uphold her oath, she may resign. She's not conscripted into the job for life. That would be a violation of her religious freedom. If she had suddenly become a whatever type of Christian she claims to be *after* Obergefell came down instead before the decision (but after husband number 4, was it?), she wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. She's an elected official. She either executes the laws or resigns. The public should not be at the mercy of her religious whims.

Agreed! But, there is select, narrowly defined group that wants to hog all the religious freedom for themselves at the expense of everyone else's civil rights because they view themselves has super special snowflakes for whom the rule "your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe on your neighbor's civil rights" should never have to apply.

 

The free exercise of religion was never a free pass to be exempt from the consequences of choosing to do it. Her consequence is jail because she chose it though she was offered a perfectly amenable solution and refused. That is her problem EXCLUSIVELY and not an infringement on her belief. The state is not oppressing her, imprisoning her, torturing her, impoverishing her, or any other horror that has been committed in the name of forcing a set of beliefs on people. The state is incarcerating her for refusing to follow the law she took an oath to uphold. She should NEVER have run for public office if she wasn't willing to do what the oath said. What's that ten commandment thing about lying??? She lied. What about that verse in Matthew about not swearing oaths??? Well, she swore an oath against what an apostle said so she is now suffering the consequences. Oh wait....the public is supposed to ignore that completely too.

 

I have NO desire to live in a country in which an elected, governmental official gets to cherry pick which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore based on personal belief. NO THANKS! Let us not hark back to the Dark Ages.

 

What I don't get is the very same group of people who get their tail in a twist about this based on Biblical beliefs would then also get livid if there was a return to legal polygamy, and that version of marriage has tremendous Biblical support!

[Rivka]

TranquilMind, this doesn't seem to be the appropriate thread for re-hashing the case against gay marriage, unless you're trying to do merry gardens a favor and get the thread shut down.

 

The Supreme Court ruled. There's no provision for individual government employees to vacate a Supreme Court decision if they disagree with it.

 

The question before us here is not, "Should the concept of rights in America have followed a different course over time, a course that Kim Davis and TranquilMind would have approved of more?" You've got one answer to that question, and the majority of Americans have a different one, and I understand that that's got to sting. I do. But the question before us now is, "Do government employees act on their own behalf, or on behalf of the government?" And the answer to that questions has always been "on behalf of the government." If that's not how it works, we have chaos.

[goldberry]

OT, Moxie, your mailbox is full.  I wanted to ask if I have you permission to add your quote to my signature as my new Favorite WTM Post Ever.

 

"I was brought to Christ when an angry woman yelled an insult at me" said no one, ever."

 

Priceless.  May I?

[mommaduck]

Rivka, you have my deep respect. That is it in a nutshell.

[FaithManor]

OT, Moxie, your mailbox is full.  I wanted to ask if I have you permission to add your quote to my signature as my new Favorite WTM Post Ever.

 

"I was brought to Christ when an angry woman yelled an insult at me" said no one, ever."

 

Priceless.  May I?

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!! :hurray:  :hurray: :hurray:  

 

And from my perspective as a Jesus follower, it hurts my heart when I see people expressing their "Christianity" in such manner because all it does is push people away.

[goldberry]

Just curious...it's clear from the baker cases etc. many people think that private businesses should be able to deny services based on religious belief. Even if you do believe that, do you not see a difference between that and someone representing the government?

[Guest]

OT, Moxie, your mailbox is full. I wanted to ask if I have you permission to add your quote to my signature as my new Favorite WTM Post Ever.

 

"I was brought to Christ when an angry woman yelled an insult at me" said no one, ever."

 

Priceless. May I?

Sure. And thanks for the heads-up about my inbox.

[justasque]

Well, she is being removed, so you can relax.

 

The Constitution protects her religious view and practice.  It now protects an act that contravenes her religious view.  She is going down, but took a stand.

Don't worry.  She is still going down.  We have decided as a nation that the right to gay marriage is more important than traditional religious views. 

 

I think what has happened is that the courts, over the past few decades (and it has been many decades - this is not a recent trend), have realized that the arguments against gay rights are not only traditionally religious ones, they are solely religious ones.  That is, the secular arguments (the ones not based on a specific religion) against various gay rights have not held up to careful scrutiny, thus we are left with only the religious ones.  Given that, and given that different religions have different views on things like who is allowed to marry who, the court had no choice but to come down on the side of expanding civil rights, including civil marriage, to gay folks, rather than continuing to restrict them on solely religious grounds.  .  

 

So yes, the right of someone to marry their partner of choice is more important than the views of a particular religious denomination when it comes to access to civil marriage.  This is what religious freedom looks like in a secular society.

[albeto.]

You mean Christianity, not "xianity", I presume?  I don't demean your nonbelief.  You are free to believe what you want, erroneous as it is or is not. 

 

Same thing. It's shorthand. I'm lazy.

 

I'm really not going to stoop to discussing non-relevant examples of "bad Christians" you drag out to support yet another diatribe against "the evils of Christianity", one of your all-time favorite topics since departing the Catholic Church, post TS. 

 

Yes, Josh Duggar, molesting priests, and ministers in the pulpit who look at porn before they go preach all exist. and judgment is coming down on the heads of all of them, now or in the future, if they don't repent and turn from sin.  They know they are sinning when they do it, yet somehow think they are above getting caught, and they all get caught, sooner or later.

Lots of bad atheists exist as well and they will be exposed as well.

 

This is entirely irrelevant to this issue. 

 

It's entirely supportive of the issue. The issue isn't identifying the good xian, the issue is identifying the argument against homosexuality as it pertains to the perceived necessity to preserve an outmoded definition of "marriage."

[Artichoke]

Because gays shouldn't have rights.

 

oh my god

 

I so don't want to enter the fray, but I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.  

 

 

I read TM as only being against gay marriage.  I don't see her as having the idea that people who are gay should have no rights.  

 

Would you have interpreted it differently if she had something like newly won rights instead of using the word discovered?

[albeto.]

I so don't want to enter the fray, but I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.  

 

 

I read TM as only being against gay marriage.  I don't see her as having the idea that people who are gay should have no rights.  

 

Would you have interpreted it differently if she had something like newly won rights instead of using the word discovered?

 

The problem with TM's argument is not the element of "discovered rights" vs. "newly won rights," the problem is in suppressing certain rights by virtue of sexual orientation, an unjustifiable restriction.

 

She suggests there is no suppression of rights, as one is still free to marry an adult of the opposite sex. 

 

She does not advocate for the liberty for two mutually consenting adults to marry unless they are of the opposite sex. And therein lies the desired oppression - the liberty, the right to enjoy civil privileges based on marriage, would be extended to heterosexual couples only. That's not equal access to the same right. 

[Luckymama]

I'm in Like Button Purgatory :/

Joining you! Sheesh.

[Artichoke]

The problem with TM's argument is not the element of "discovered rights" vs. "newly won rights," the problem is in suppressing certain rights by virtue of sexual orientation, an unjustifiable restriction.

 

She suggests there is no suppression of rights, as one is still free to marry an adult of the opposite sex. 

 

She does not advocate for the liberty for two mutually consenting adults to marry unless they are of the opposite sex. And therein lies the desired oppression - the liberty, the right to enjoy civil privileges based on marriage, would be extended to heterosexual couples only. That's not equal access to the same right. 

 

Thanks for elaborating. 

[TranquilMind]

I think what has happened is that the courts, over the past few decades (and it has been many decades - this is not a recent trend), have realized that the arguments against gay rights are not only traditionally religious ones, they are solely religious ones.  That is, the secular arguments (the ones not based on a specific religion) against various gay rights have not held up to careful scrutiny, thus we are left with only the religious ones.  Given that, and given that different religions have different views on things like who is allowed to marry who, the court had no choice but to come down on the side of expanding civil rights, including civil marriage, to gay folks, rather than continuing to restrict them on solely religious grounds.  .  

 

So yes, the right of someone to marry their partner of choice is more important than the views of a particular religious denomination when it comes to access to civil marriage.  This is what religious freedom looks like in a secular society.

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

[LucyStoner]

Just curious...it's clear from the baker cases etc. many people think that private businesses should be able to deny services based on religious belief. Even if you do believe that, do you not see a difference between that and someone representing the government?

The interesting thing is that it is not based on religion. It's based on sexual orientation.

 

A hotel owner or a cake baker, for instance can not cite his religion as the basis for turning away people because they are of a race or religion he doesn't like. Race and religion being protected classes more or less everywhere. It doesn't matter if my religion says interracial marriage is wrong, if I want to turn down the business of an interracial couple, I open myself to serious liability if I let that be known in anyway. As I understand it, my religion can't be used as a defense even if interracial marriage violates my religious belief. If I offer a public accomodation, I can't discriminate based on race or religion.

 

So if I'm in Kentucky and a baker and I refuse to bake a cake for a straight couple, that's legally ok. Bad business but not illegal. Because I am turning them away based on something from which they have no legal protection from discrimination in that state. I don't need any real reason, religious or otherwise. "I don't bake for het couples" is legit.

 

What allows people to turn away gay patrons where it is legal to do so is that sexual orientation is not a legally protected class from discrimination in public accommodations. The reasons a business owner might do that are irrelevant.

[Ipsey]

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

The act of marriage makes a family all by itself.  It isn't reproduction that does it. 

I'm sure many of my childless-by-choice friends would be surprised to know their marriage doesn't count or is essentially worthless--or that they aren't actually a family!--because they haven't produced offspring.

[TranquilMind]

The problem with TM's argument is not the element of "discovered rights" vs. "newly won rights," the problem is in suppressing certain rights by virtue of sexual orientation, an unjustifiable restriction.

 

She suggests there is no suppression of rights, as one is still free to marry an adult of the opposite sex. 

 

She does not advocate for the liberty for two mutually consenting adults to marry unless they are of the opposite sex. And therein lies the desired oppression - the liberty, the right to enjoy civil privileges based on marriage, would be extended to heterosexual couples only. That's not equal access to the same right. 

Only heterosexual couples reproduce children, which is the traditional reason for legal protection of the family.   

 

Anyone can have whatever relationships he or she wants.  No one is stopping them.     But that doesn't make it "marriage", no matter what you call it. 

 

If you remove any restrictions, marriage loses its meaning.  Why not marry friends or coworkers to get legal protections and someone who can operate on your behalf if anything happens?    Why limit yourself to one? 

[Matryoshka]

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

Whether you like it or not, many, many gay couples have children and are.... families.  For many years before gay marriage was legal.  This is one of the main reasons the change was needed. 

 

And as I'm sure has been pointed out many times, no one tries to block marriage for infertile couples or those where the woman is past menopause.  The argument makes no sense from either direction.

 

[TranquilMind]

The act of marriage makes a family all by itself.  It isn't reproduction that does it. 

I'm sure many of my childless-by-choice friends would be surprised to know their marriage doesn't count or is essentially worthless--or that they aren't actually a family!--because they haven't produced offspring.

That is the purpose of the marital protections.  Whether or not someone has children ultimately is irrelevant. Some can't have children. 

[goldberry]

 I agree with Rivka, there is no point in rehashing this whole argument.  This case is different, and interesting, in particular because the person involved is a government employee.

[justasque]

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

Same-sex families have children in nearly all the ways that other families do.  They have them from previous relationships.  They have them through adoption - international, domestic foster system, or kinship situations.  They have them through the various ways that heterosexual couples with an infertile husband have them.  They have them in the way Mrs. Davis had hers - through relationships with someone other than their spouse.  Once these children are part of a family, we have no reason to treat these families as different from any other families who ended up with their children in the same way.

[idnib]

But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion, using the example of a woman who had her uterus surgically removed in her 20s due to uterine cancer. According to your logic, she must forever remain a virgin because she should not get married due to her lack of reproductive capability, but she also should not have sex outside of marriage.

 

Stop me if I'm wrong here.

[TranquilMind]

Whether you like it or not, many, many gay couples have children and are.... families.  For many years before gay marriage was legal.  This is one of the main reasons the change was needed. 

 

They didn't have children as a couple.

In most cases, they brought them in from failed relationships.  

[TranquilMind]

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion, using the example of a woman who had her uterus surgically removed in her 20s due to uterine cancer. According to your logic, she must forever remain a virgin because she should not get married due to her lack of reproductive capability, but she also should not have sex outside of marriage.

 

Stop me if I'm wrong here.

You are SO wrong. 

 

Marriage is not solely based on reproductive capabilities, but should not explicitly exclude it by definition.  Husbands and wives have been adopting children forever.   It happens, for various reasons.  Those kids need a mom and a dad. 

[idnib]

Why limit yourself to one? 

 

Agreed. And when Shariah law takes over, I'll get a clerk position and approve those marriages, but only for men. I'm sure nobody will mind Shariah law, right? It's up to the clerk, after all.  ;)

[idnib]

You are SO wrong. 

 

Marriage is not solely based on reproductive capabilities, but should not explicitly exclude it by definition.  Husbands and wives have been adopting children forever.   It happens, for various reasons.  Those kids need a mom and a dad. 

 

Can you comment on a man/woman marriage if they  are unable to have bio children and also don't adopt? Are they a family, in your view?

[justasque]

They didn't have children as a couple.

In most cases, they brought them in from failed relationships.  

 

As did Mrs. Davis.

[Matryoshka]

They didn't have children as a couple.

In most cases, they brought them in from failed relationships.  

 

Yeah, straight couples never do that.  Or adopt. And I'm sure proper godly straight couples always eschew those "modern reproductive methods" - I'm sure they were invented just for the gayz.  Those aren't "proper" families -  I understand you.

 

So you're saying kids coming into marriages of straight people that way also should not have access to full family rights, then?  Kim Davis' kids aren't legit by that measure in like three different ways...

 

[TranquilMind]

Can you comment on a man/woman marriage if they  are unable to have bio children and also don't adopt? Are they a family, in your view?

It does not change the traditional reason marriage is legally privileged in the first place if a particular family doesn't happen to end up with children. 

[Pawz4me]

Sigh.

 

This was such a good thread, about a new and rather interesting legal issue.

 

Now it's turning into a boring rerun.

 

:( :(

[albeto.]

Sigh.

 

This was such a good thread, about a new and rather interesting legal issue.

 

Now it's just yet another boring rehash.

 

:( :(

 

I think some people need more time to process some things. I know I sometimes do.

 

I don't think it should stop anyone from replying to the comments that they want. 

[TranquilMind]

Yeah, straight couples never do that.  Or adopt. And I'm sure proper godly straight couples always eschew those "modern reproductive methods" - I'm sure they were invented just for the gayz.  Those aren't "proper" families -  I understand you.

 

So you're saying kids coming into marriages of straight people that way also should not have access to full family rights, then?  Kim Davis' kids aren't legit by that measure in like three different ways...

 

Stop putting words in my mouth.  I have said what I am saying.  Mockery doesn't change anything, except it reduces your credibility in the discussion. 

 

It is best for kids if Mom and Dad raise them inside a good marriage.  Are you really attempting to argue it isn't best for them?  That they should be shuffled around in various living configurations for the convenience and happiness of the adults involved? 

 

Similarly, it is best if kids are breastfed.  That is simply what is objectively best for them.  However, sometimes, an alternative feeding method has to suffice for various reasons.  It does not follow that this now means breast is not best. 

[Renthead Mommy]

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

 

Well when I got married it wasn't to "create a family".  I got married because financially we were better off married than single.   Eventually we had a child.  I was never positive that we were ever going to even decide to do that until we did it. 

 

I know a lot of people who married with no intention of ever having kids.  By choice. 

 

So their marriages and mine what? Don't count?