KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Mergath]

I believe he is saying her right to prevent the marriages should be respected as much as their right to request a license.

 

And that's just it. She really does think it's her right to prevent other adults from doing something legal based on her own beliefs. Not just to not issue the license herself, but to prevent the marriage completely. Even now from in jail, she's shrieking that the licenses aren't valid without her signature. She should be happy that some kind of solution has been reached, but she's not because she'll never be happy unless she can turn Rowan County into a tiny theocracy.

 

If your "right" takes rights away from other people, it was never actually a right. 

[Word Nerd]

It's also pretty disingenuous for any of the protesters who yelled "perverts!" at the SS couples going into the clerk's office Friday to claim their opposition to SSM isn't based on animosity.

[mommaduck]

I believe he is saying her right to prevent the marriages should be respected as much as their right to request a license.

 

I'm aware ;) He comes off as very uneducated and unable to accurately express himself.

[Peach]

I'm aware ;) He comes off as very uneducated and unable to accurately express himself.

 

He does. In another interview, he referred to himself as an 'old, dumb, country hillbilly'. He's not really helping her case. I have also wondered at the adequacy of her legal representation and their advice to her. As noted above, she is defying a federal judge. The things noted in the press as coming from her legal counsel, if accurate, make them look really bad. 

[LucyStoner]

My husband is an attorney, and all he could say after reading some of the husband's comments was, "You don't ever get into a power struggle with a federal judge. Ever."

Yup, it's a total fight with the bull, you get the horns situation. Defying a federal judge does not tend to end well, even if you are in the right because the fact remains he or she is a federal judge and you, you are just not.

[SKL]

The lady said her decision was based on her religious beliefs.

 

Had she said her decision was based on an honest belief that the law was being misinterpreted, and the state's definition of marriage was still legally valid, my reaction would be different.

 

The question of whether the definition of marriage is a federal matter is an interesting question.  As a person who does not believe marriage is a fundamental human right or need, I can understand arguments that it is a state matter.  However, I am not passionate about it one way or the other.

 

There are many things that are legal despite being immoral.  And there are things that are illegal mainly because they are considered immoral.

 

Remember the part in the New Testament where Jesus said, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's?  I think the message is that you can usually follow the earthly laws without selling your soul to the devil, even if those laws aren't in line with Biblical teachings.

 

But on the other hand, what about the laws under the Third Reich which required Jews to be stripped of rights, property, liberty, and life?  Would the Hive support a cold "do what the law says" logic?  No, it would not.  If we are honest, the Hive would say that it is better to err on the side of expanding human rights.  And yet - they would not generally apply that to, say, bigamy or incest or a lot of other things.  The fact is that these questions are not simple.

[MSNative]

I believe he is saying her right to prevent the marriages should be respected as much as their right to request a license.

I thought the issue was that her right to not have her name on the license should be respected not the right to prevent the marriages. Of course I could be all wrong.

I feel like this is yet another example of a movement picking the wrong victim to rally behind.

[LucyStoner]

I thought the issue was that her right to not have her name on the license should be respected not the right to prevent the marriages. Of course I could be all wrong.

I feel like this is yet another example of a movement picking the wrong victim to rally behind.

They argued that YET her lawyer was vowing the the licenses issued on Friday are null and void. I found his tone to be somewhat jeering. That doesn't seem to be just her not wanting her name on the license. It seems to be her and/or her team saying that they will do whatever they can to block these legally valid marriages, for as long as they can.

[Word Nerd]

They argued that YET her lawyer was vowing the the licenses issued on Friday are null and void. I found his tone to be somewhat jeering. That doesn't seem to be just her not wanting her name on the license. It seems to be her and/or her team saying that they will do whatever they can to block these legally valid marriages, for as long as they can.

From what I understand her name does still appear in print on the licenses, presumably above the signature line. I think it would take legislative action to change the forms.

 

ETA:

"Marriage licenses in Kentucky are required to include an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license. Some state lawmakers, as well as the Kentucky County Clerks Association, have suggesting having clerks' names removed from marriage licenses."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-offers-remedy-sex/story?id=33532686

[albeto.]

The lady said her decision was based on her religious beliefs.

 

Had she said her decision was based on an honest belief that the law was being misinterpreted, and the state's definition of marriage was still legally valid, my reaction would be different.

 

The question of whether the definition of marriage is a federal matter is an interesting question.  As a person who does not believe marriage is a fundamental human right or need, I can understand arguments that it is a state matter.  However, I am not passionate about it one way or the other.

 

There are many things that are legal despite being immoral.  And there are things that are illegal mainly because they are considered immoral.

 

Remember the part in the New Testament where Jesus said, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's?  I think the message is that you can usually follow the earthly laws without selling your soul to the devil, even if those laws aren't in line with Biblical teachings.

 

But on the other hand, what about the laws under the Third Reich which required Jews to be stripped of rights, property, liberty, and life?  Would the Hive support a cold "do what the law says" logic?  No, it would not.  If we are honest, the Hive would say that it is better to err on the side of expanding human rights.  And yet - they would not generally apply that to, say, bigamy or incest or a lot of other things.  The fact is that these questions are not simple.

 

It's interesting that you invoke the Nuremberg defense, because this is precisely what Davis is doing. She's not concerned with the rights or liberties of people, she's simply being obedient to [her perception of her god's] law. She's appealing to people's loyalty to their faith to suppress, or at least restrict judgement. This is one major argument against religious faith in general - the appeal to obedience over rational consideration - that is being exposed as a detrimental rather than beneficial element in society. We see all kinds of public judgement applied to muslim fundamentalist arguments and behaviors, but until recently, not much applied to xian fundamentalist arguments and behaviors (example of such arguments). But in this event alone, we're seeing just how faith, or loyalty to one's religion, works to disrupt the goals we as a society have decided to pursue. Loyalty to religious fundamentalism, whether to the god of the bible or the quran, promotes tribalism (including ignoring moral offenses and diverting natural empathy to one's ingroup), makes a virtue out of faith over intelligent consideration, encourages intellectual and social helplessness, values dependency on authority, and of course, seeks power. 

[melmichigan]

 

The LExington Herald-Leader posted this today:  http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html

 

I love some of the comments:

 

61.035 Deputy may act for ministerial officer.

Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy. 

 

Effective: July 1, 1953

History: Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, secs. 1 and 26, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C. sec. 678.

 

 

 

61.120 Salary -- Deduction from for failure to perform duty. 

(1) If any officer paid in whole or in part out of the State Treasury or by any county 

fails or neglects to perform his duties, without a good excuse set out in full by his 

affidavit and certified by order of court to the Finance and Administration Cabinet 

or other paying officer, there shall be thereafter deducted from his salary such an 

amount as the total number of days during the year in which he failed or neglected 

to discharge his duty bears to the whole number of days in the year for which he 

received compensation.

I wish there was a reference for this one.

[Word Nerd]

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=22892

[Halftime Hope]

Your rights end where someone else's begin.  If you have a belief that compels action that infringes on someone else's civil rights, no, you don't get to do that action, no matter how sincere and deeply held your belief of its necessity is.  Let's take that thinking to an extreme:

 

So, if someone has a sincerely held religious belief that all people should convert to their particular "one true" religion or die, because they sincerely believe their holy book or God says so, then by that measure it's perfectly okay - not just okay, but morally imperative - to act on that belief and kill the infidels.  I guess we should stop jailing the ISIS terrorists, then, because that's exactly their thought process...

 

No, denying someone their right to a civil marriage is not  as bad as killing them, but the logic is the same.  Your rights end where someone else's begin.

 

Matryoshka, you and I both know that life is not that simple.

[TranquilMind]

There are some interesting articles about whether she's receiving effective assistance of counsel or being used by the hate group as a guinea pig of sorts. Liberty Counsel is an offshoot of Liberty University, and they are *very* outspoken on their hatred of homosexuals and the "homosexual agenda." Gay people are compared to terrorists, all kinds of crazy tin foil hat stuff about people being forced into being gay, etc. (See also thread about why people join cults... Kim Davis seems a pretty good target to me.)

Please cite the hatred of homosexuals expressed by Liberty University and Liberty Counsel (whom I am assuming are attorneys).    I would like to see your source for this very biased statement.

 

Disapproval of an action is NOT HATE.  I don't know how many times this must be expressed to be understood.

 

I disapprove strongly of the less careful nature of one of my kids.  I do not HATE that child.  I don't approve of some actions that child takes and some things that child believes.  And it doesn't matter that I do anymore, really, since this is a young adult we are talking about.  That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and state it when an item is left in one country and has to be retrieved from across the border via a series of maneuvers.   

 

Failing to agree with someone's actions or beliefs  is NOT HATE. 

Now if you punch the person in the face, that's pretty hateful. 

[Matryoshka]

Matryoshka, you and I both know that life is not that simple.

 

Huh, funny - I've never, not for one second ever in my life have felt even the slightest twinge to restrict someone else's legal actions based on anything I believed.  And I honestly don't understand why anyone else feels that's necessary, and the law does not allow for it, because separation of church and state. So I don't even begin to understand why it's not that simple.  And the recourse for someone who can't or won't understand it is provided through the legal system.  So the system is working.  If someone breaks the law, they are arrested.  Don't care what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told them to do.

 

[Matryoshka]

Failing to agree with someone's actions or beliefs  is NOT HATE. 

 

Now if you punch the person in the face, that's pretty hateful. 

 

Not liking the fact that gay marriage is legal = Failing to agree with someone's actions

Not allowing them to get their marriage license = Punching them in the face.  Actually, worse.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Huh, funny - I've never, not for one second ever in my life have felt even the slightest twinge to restrict someone else's legal actions based on anything I believed.  And I honestly don't understand why anyone else feels that's necessary, and the law does not allow for it, because separation of church and state. So I don't even begin to understand why it's not that simple.  And the recourse for someone who can't or won't understand it is provided through the legal system.  So the system is working.  If someone breaks the law, they are arrested.  Don't care what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told them to do.

 

Really?  You've never had drunk or super loud neighbors blasting music all night that you only wished you had the power to restrict?  (Some jurisdictions do, but others presume there are rational people living in neighborhoods).    You've never had some awful neighbor with an incessantly barking dog (also not illegal). 

 

You've never been angry watching some stupid driver dodging cars at a high rate of speed - while texting - and you were praying he doesn't kill anyone?   (Not illegal here, but stupid people abound).  My neighbor was slammed in the back of the car after having just recovered from surgery by one of these lovely people and can't go back to work.  The driver was texting.  My vehicle was totaled by someone holding up a phone a few years ago. 

 

None of this was illegal.  All of it was stupid and damaging to others and should totally be restricted. In fact, people like this should live in their own neighborhoods and leave the rest of us alone and safe to sleep and drive. 

[albeto.]

Really?  You've never had drunk or super loud neighbors blasting music all night that you only wished you had the power to restrict?  (Some jurisdictions do, but others presume there are rational people living in neighborhoods).    You've never had some awful neighbor with an incessantly barking dog (also not illegal). 

 

You've never been angry watching some stupid driver dodging cars at a high rate of speed - while texting - and you were praying he doesn't kill anyone?   (Not illegal here, but stupid people abound).  My neighbor was slammed in the back of the car after having just recovered from surgery by one of these lovely people and can't go back to work.  She was texting.  My vehicle was totaled by someone holding up a phone a few years ago. 

None of this was illegal.  All of it was stupid and damaging to others and should totally be restricted. In fact, people like this should live in their own neighborhoods and leave the rest of us alone and safe to sleep and drive. 

 

Automobile accident's aren't a matter of belief.

[Acorn]

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.

You do know that there are many gay families with children, right? I am fighting for the protection of those families. The rights for one parent to receive medical benefits for his/ her spouse and their children. Or the right to visit his/ her spouse in the hospital, etc.

[TranquilMind]

Not liking the fact that gay marriage is legal = Failing to agree with someone's actions

Not allowing them to get their marriage license = Punching them in the face.  Actually, worse.

Not talking about her, specifically, but speaking  to the issue.    And heck no, it is not worse than punching people in the face.    It's a minor inconvenience. 

 

There was a brief delay after the Supreme Court ruling, which they used to their advantage to advance the cause.  Now they will get their licenses.  Who cares. 

[TranquilMind]

You do know that there are many gay families with children, right? I am fighting for the protection of those families. The rights for one parent to receive medical benefits for his/ her spouse and their children. Or the right to visit his/ her spouse in the hospital, etc.

The original families into which the kids were born should have been protected and did have those advantages, assuming actual marriage and not just getting impregnated. 

[TranquilMind]

Automobile accident's aren't a matter of belief.

The driving and texting is legal so it must be fine, under the logic presented.   And of course, the awful people doing it always believe they are the very best drivers, so natural laws (as well as driving laws) do not apply to them.

 

The accident is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, not a belief. 

[Matryoshka]

Really?  You've never had drunk or super loud neighbors blasting music all night that you only wished you had the power to restrict?  (Some jurisdictions do, but others presume there are rational people living in neighborhoods).    You've never had some awful neighbor with an incessantly barking dog (also not illegal). 

 

You've never been angry watching some stupid driver dodging cars at a high rate of speed - while texting - and you were praying he doesn't kill anyone?   (Not illegal here, but stupid people abound).  My neighbor was slammed in the back of the car after having just recovered from surgery by one of these lovely people and can't go back to work.  She was texting.  My vehicle was totaled by someone holding up a phone a few years ago. 

None of this was illegal.  All of it was stupid and damaging to others and should totally be restricted. In fact, people like this should live in their own neighborhoods and leave the rest of us alone and safe to sleep and drive. 

 

It is in fact illegal to text and drive.  So is blasting music all night (disturbing the peace).  The police would in fact tell them to cut it out.

 

And wishing people would cut out their stupid behavior is an entirely different thing that acting on it by say, going over to their house and shooting their incessantly barking dog.  Or rear-ending the texting person's car to make them stop (or what action would you suggest to stop it??)  Or going over to loud, drunken neighbor's house and what, yelling at them?  Threatening them with a bat?  All stupid and for me, unthinkable even..  But even if I did think that way, thinking =/= action.

 

Kim Davis is not thinking, she is acting.

 

[albeto.]

The driving and texting is legal so it must be fine, under the logic presented. 

 

Ridiculous. Driving and texting is legal, and is dangerous for reasons that are obvious, objective, and require no amount of faith to understand. 

[Joanne]

Please cite the hatred of homosexuals expressed by Liberty University and Liberty Counsel (whom I am assuming are attorneys).    I would like to see your source for this very biased statement.

 

Disapproval of an action is NOT HATE.  I don't know how many times this must be expressed to be understood.

 

I disapprove strongly of the less careful nature of one of my kids.  I do not HATE that child.  I don't approve of some actions that child takes and some things that child believes.  And it doesn't matter that I do anymore, really, since this is a young adult we are talking about.  That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and state it when an item is left in one country and has to be retrieved from across the border via a series of maneuvers.   

 

Failing to agree with someone's actions or beliefs  is NOT HATE. 

Now if you punch the person in the face, that's pretty hateful. 

 

We (or at least I) HEAR you. We (or at least I) disagree. The range of homophobia spans direct physical abuse and includes "not approving of the lifestyle" and "believing it is sin." It all works together to foster and maintain a culture in which it is still chillingly difficult to be a sexual minority.

 

You can keep insisting "it's not hate." And I need to say that homosexual orientation is not a belief or a behavior.  Or an action. It speaks ONLY to the gender of the persons individuals feel romantically attracted to. It suggests nothing else in terms of behavior, morality, activity, lifestyle.

 

Being heterosexual suggests nothing beyond that in terms of a person; neither does being homosexual (or bi, or a-, or pan).

[DragonFaerie]

Seems appropriate to share this again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM

[albeto.]

Kim Davis is not thinking, she is acting.

 

Kim Davis has offered herself a living sacrifice to an imaginary god she thinks is using her for his glory.

 

And she's thrilled to be used for such a purpose.

 

And that's how brainwashing works.

 

And she's not alone in this. 

 

And THAT is the worrisome part. 

[Greta]

Really? You've never had drunk or super loud neighbors blasting music all night that you only wished you had the power to restrict? (Some jurisdictions do, but others presume there are rational people living in neighborhoods). You've never had some awful neighbor with an incessantly barking dog (also not illegal).

 

You've never been angry watching some stupid driver dodging cars at a high rate of speed - while texting - and you were praying he doesn't kill anyone? (Not illegal here, but stupid people abound). My neighbor was slammed in the back of the car after having just recovered from surgery by one of these lovely people and can't go back to work. The driver was texting. My vehicle was totaled by someone holding up a phone a few years ago.

 

None of this was illegal. All of it was stupid and damaging to others and should totally be restricted. In fact, people like this should live in their own neighborhoods and leave the rest of us alone and safe to sleep and drive.

Every example that you gave is illegal where I live. Sounds like your legislators aren't doing their jobs.

[Halftime Hope]

Huh, funny - I've never, not for one second ever in my life have felt even the slightest twinge to restrict someone else's legal actions based on anything I believed.  And I honestly don't understand why anyone else feels that's necessary, and the law does not allow for it, because separation of church and state. So I don't even begin to understand why it's not that simple.  And the recourse for someone who can't or won't understand it is provided through the legal system.  So the system is working.  If someone breaks the law, they are arrested.  Don't care what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told them to do.

 

Your are dancing all around my point.  You know and I know that it is simplistic to the point of idiocy to wave our hands and say, "My rights end where your begin," or vice versa.  It is rarely that simple. 

 

Upthread, I said that the issue here is complex.  By saying that, I am not supporting the clerk or saying that she is right in what she's doing, I'm saying that the conflicting rights are difficult to resolve.  

 

Some of us like our lives simple.  When dh was unemployed for 21 months, he got call after call to go do I.T. for casinos in Vegas.  (No, I have no earthly idea why.)  We knew that he could not take those jobs with a clear conscience, so we continued to struggle for another number of months before he finally landed another job.  We had a choice before the fact (e.g., we were not already employed by a company whose line of work suddenly changed to casino work), and even though it was costly personally, we made a choice we could live with.

 

I don't know why the clerk is making the choices she is making on the details, and I do not understand the logic of some of it, but it's not simple.  She is being asked to do something new, in her job, that conflicts with her personal beliefs.  It also happens to conflict with the beliefs of many other county clerks in her state and with a full 50% of the JPs in a neighboring state. 

 

We would never have gotten to this impasse were it not for the lawlessness and judicial activism of SCOTUS, who only two years ago said that this issue was a state issue but then reversed themselves in Obergefell.  (You can read the minority dissents on Obergefell to see the minority justices themselves calling out the majority's stance.)

 

Had SCOTUS allowed the lawful process to work, states could have properly come to their own outworking of all of this, and we would have avoided this and many other ridiculous situations that will be coming down the pike. 

 

In an odd way, I feel badly for this clerk.  If she is as naïve, uneducated, and incompetent as some of the civil servants I've come in contact with in my dealings with city and county government, it's almost criminal that she is the person who is becoming the whipping child in this situation.  (That line from Emma comes to mind, "Badly done, Emma!") 

[poppy]

Your sexual urges are abhorrent and you should not have the same right I have. But I don't HATE you. See how that last part doesn't actually make it better???

[zoobie]

Please cite the hatred of homosexuals expressed by Liberty University and Liberty Counsel (whom I am assuming are attorneys). I would like to see your source for this very biased statement.

 

Disapproval of an action is NOT HATE. I don't know how many times this must be expressed to be understood.

 

I disapprove strongly of the less careful nature of one of my kids. I do not HATE that child. I don't approve of some actions that child takes and some things that child believes. And it doesn't matter that I do anymore, really, since this is a young adult we are talking about. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and state it when an item is left in one country and has to be retrieved from across the border via a series of maneuvers.

 

Failing to agree with someone's actions or beliefs is NOT HATE.

Now if you punch the person in the face, that's pretty hateful.

You probably won't like the SPLC, but Liberty Counsel is on their anti-gay hate group list: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/18-anti-gay-groups-and-their-propaganda

 

The lead counsel and director of Liberty Counsel advised Russia on their laws criminalizing gayness. Is throwing gay people in jail not considered hateful?

 

He took away a gay partner's parental rights when her partner suddenly found extreme Christianity. He defended a Ugandan who was working in his country to criminalize homosexuality.

 

This is a nasty human being. He may not be hateful to you, but he sure is in my mind.

 

WaPo editorial from 2013: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/03/the-painful-case-of-pastor-scott-lively-homophobe-to-the-world/

[TranquilMind]

We (or at least I) HEAR you. We (or at least I) disagree. The range of homophobia spans direct physical abuse and includes "not approving of the lifestyle" and "believing it is sin." It all works together to foster and maintain a culture in which it is still chillingly difficult to be a sexual minority.

 

You can keep insisting "it's not hate." And I need to say that homosexual orientation is not a belief or a behavior.  Or an action. It speaks ONLY to the gender of the persons individuals feel romantically attracted to. It suggests nothing else in terms of behavior, morality, activity, lifestyle.

 

Being heterosexual suggests nothing beyond that in terms of a person; neither does being homosexual (or bi, or a-, or pan).

You say that you "hear me" yet then immediately contradict that fact by stating erroneously that the mere belief in traditional marriage is "homophobia".  You clearly did not "hear" me at all. You don't get it.  No one fears them. 

 

9.99  of 10 people who hold the belief that men having sex with men or women with women is wrong, never do or say a thing about it anywhere at any time, except maybe on a forum like this if it comes up for discussion in the abstract.  They just go about their lives and treat everyone with respect and mind their own business, and hope others will do the same.  They don't know what others are doing in their bedrooms and they don't care unless you do it in front of them.  This is the reality.

 

Then there's that 0.00001 of a percent of jerks who beat up someone, and the fiction is disseminated that this is representative of all who support marriage, as understood throughout our history and that gay people of victims of all those hateful straight people (who are completely ignoring them) everywhere!  Alert the authorities!  An injustice has been done.  

 

That's just ridiculously and pathetically wrong. 

 

You can't hear me. 

 

Orientation is indeed an action, a behavior engaged in, unless it is a mere thought one tucks away somewhere and never acts upon.  In that case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

[TranquilMind]

You probably won't like the SPLC, but Liberty Counsel is on their anti-gay hate group list: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/18-anti-gay-groups-and-their-propaganda

 

The lead counsel and director of Liberty Counsel advised Russia on their laws criminalizing gayness. Is throwing gay people in jail not considered hateful?

 

He took away a gay partner's parental rights when her partner suddenly found extreme Christianity. He defended a Ugandan who was working in his country to criminalize homosexuality.

 

This is a nasty human being. He may not be hateful to you, but he sure is in my mind.

 

WaPo editorial from 2013: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/03/the-painful-case-of-pastor-scott-lively-homophobe-to-the-world/

Who is he?  The Lead counsel?  Never heard of this group and off to read it. 

[TranquilMind]

You probably won't like the SPLC, but Liberty Counsel is on their anti-gay hate group list: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/18-anti-gay-groups-and-their-propaganda

 

The lead counsel and director of Liberty Counsel advised Russia on their laws criminalizing gayness. Is throwing gay people in jail not considered hateful?

 

He took away a gay partner's parental rights when her partner suddenly found extreme Christianity. He defended a Ugandan who was working in his country to criminalize homosexuality.

 

This is a nasty human being. He may not be hateful to you, but he sure is in my mind.

 

WaPo editorial from 2013: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/03/the-painful-case-of-pastor-scott-lively-homophobe-to-the-world/

Oh, for goodness sakes. The SPLC article you link is entitled (in huge print):  "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda"

 

Gee, now there's a balanced source. 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group if there ever was one. 

 

Do you have a real source?  Never mind.  I will read it and try to go find one. 

[poppy]

You say that you "hear me" yet then immediately contradict that fact by stating erroneously that the mere belief in traditional marriage is "homophobia". You clearly did not "hear" me at all. You don't get it. No one fears them.

 

9.99 of 10 people who hold the belief that men having sex with men or women with women is wrong, never do or say a thing about it anywhere at any time, except maybe on a forum like this if it comes up for discussion in the abstract. They just go about their lives and treat everyone with respect and mind their own business, and hope others will do the same. They don't know what others are doing in their bedrooms and they don't care unless you do it in front of them. This is the reality.

 

Then there's that 0.00001 of a percent of jerks who beat up someone, and the fiction is disseminated that this is representative of all who support marriage, as understood throughout our history and that gay people of victims of all those hateful straight people (who are completely ignoring them) everywhere! Alert the authorities! An injustice has been done.

 

That's just ridiculously and pathetically wrong.

 

You can't hear me.

 

Orientation is indeed an action, a behavior engaged in, unless it is a mere thought one tucks away somewhere and never acts upon. In that case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Do you vote? Do you vote for politicians who do not feel gay folks should be allowed to marry? Then you have not never done anything to hurt a gay person.

[zoobie]

Who is he? The Lead counsel? Never heard of this group and off to read it.

The founder, director, and head bigot at Liberty Counsel.

 

Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's baby. He's on up there with anti-gay hate speech, blaming gays for 9/11 and saying things such as "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

 

Again, you may be totally cool with stuff like that. Beauty of America I guess.

[Word Nerd]

Dismissing this with "who cares" is not the best tack to take if you want people to hear you.

[TranquilMind]

Who is he?  The Lead counsel?  Never heard of this group and off to read it. 

I was reminded by the website of the guy you mention (J. Matt Barber)  of the Brandon Eich removal as CEO of Mozilla.  He - gasp - donated money to Proposition 8, and the gay lobby called for his removal from his position and got it.  He happened to hold exactly the same position as Barack Obama on the issue at the time.  

 

Sounds like a legitimate case to defend to me.'

 

I concede I do not like his tone and find it unnecessarily inflammatory, but he isn't wrong about many of the outrageous things that have happened to people who didn't tow the politically correct line, like Eich.  Nor is he wrong about the fear of those who were forced to capitulate. 

 

"Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," Eich told The Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."

 

That wasn't an option. "CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality," a Credoaction petition signed by almost 75,000 people said, per The Inquirer. "If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."

 

When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs – and beliefs popular as of 2008 – should not be used as a basis for dismissal.

 

"I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."

 

 

Nope.  Not any more. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Dismissing this with "who cares" is not the best tack to take if you want people to hear you.

I mean it in the sense that these people "suffered" a brief, inconvenient delay in acquiring licenses and now got what they wanted.

Hardly earth-shattering grievances. 

[TranquilMind]

The founder, director, and head bigot at Liberty Counsel.

 

Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's baby. He's on up there with anti-gay hate speech, blaming gays for 9/11 and saying things such as "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

 

Again, you may be totally cool with stuff like that. Beauty of America I guess.

I addressed this.  Not cool at all with his rhetoric.

[Joanne]

 

Orientation is indeed an action, a behavior engaged in, unless it is a mere thought one tucks away somewhere and never acts upon.  In that case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

 

 

Orientation is not "an action." I have not "acted" on my orientation in years.

 

Marrying is an action.

Refusing to do your job is an action.

 

Orientation is not.

 

And, please, stop saying I don't hear you. I do. I read every word you write in your posts.

 

I just don't agree with you. Working to disallow or restrict human rights is hate. Being a part of a culture that demonizes, disrespects, denigrates humans based on the gender they are romantically attracted to is hate.

[TranquilMind]

Do you vote? Do you vote for politicians who do not feel gay folks should be allowed to marry? Then you have not never done anything to hurt a gay person.

Pretty much there is no legitimate candidate left for anything who is permitted to say out loud that he believes marriage is a construct that cannot be redefined.  

 

So no, I probably do not vote for people who believe this.  This isn't an issue on which I hang my hat anyway, as I am much more interested in financial and international issues. 

[Pawz4me]

I don't know why the clerk is making the choices she is making on the details, and I do not understand the logic of some of it, but it's not simple.  She is being asked to do something new, in her job, that conflicts with her personal beliefs.  It also happens to conflict with the beliefs of many other county clerks in her state and with a full 50% of the JPs in a neighboring state.

 

No, she isn't.

 

Her job is and always has been to be a paper pusher.  To issue a marriage license to those seeking one.  It's never been her job to sit in moral judgment on anyone.  Just to provide the necessary form.  That's all, and it hasn't changed.

 

[LucyStoner]

The original families into which the kids were born should have been protected and did have those advantages, assuming actual marriage and not just getting impregnated.

Just about all of the children I know with two gay parents were born into that union or they were adopted in to that union. The others I know were adopted by a single gay parent, some times on a kinship basis (one example: gay aunt raises kid after trainwreck het mom ODs and gets sent to jail). Your repeated claim that nearly all of these children are step children from previous failed het relationships is incorrect.

 

All children deserve protection, not just those born to heterosexual spouses.

 

We don't need to look too hard to see that not all heterosexual parents provide their children with a stable 2 parent home. Most gay adoptive parents are providing more stability than foster care or orphanages provided their kids pre-adoption.

 

There are heterosexual couples that either choose or need to adopt or use surrogates or donor sperm to become parents.

 

There are single parents by choice who adopt or use ART to become parents.

 

There are parents who came to parenting by accident outside of any sort of marriage.

 

All of these children are as equally worthy of legal protections as my own children born to a stable heterosexual couple.

[TranquilMind]

Orientation is not "an action." I have not "acted" on my orientation in years.

 

Marrying is an action.

Refusing to do your job is an action.

 

Orientation is not.

 

And, please, stop saying I don't hear you. I do. I read every word you write in your posts.

 

I just don't agree with you. Working to disallow or restrict human rights is hate. Being a part of a culture that demonizes, disrespects, denigrates humans based on the gender they are romantically attracted to is hate.

"Orientation is not "an action." I have not "acted" on my orientation in years."

 

What does that even mean?  Do you mean you simply haven't dated anyone because you have been so busy with school or work?  If you have even gone there in your head, you have "acted" on your attraction to someone, even if you didn't follow through for logistical reasons.    If you haven't and are having a dormant period, so be it. 

 

But you are either having sex and acting on it (or wanting to act on it) or not.  Behavior. 

 

No one is denigrating anyone here, except suddenly your language seem to be denigrating traditionalists (of which you deem me to be a part).  That seems pretty hateful. 

 

Why don't you just believe what you want and allow those who believe in the same marriage that their great-grandma had available to her to believe what they want too?    Win-win  Everyone minds their own business and allows the other to have an opposing belief without attacking and labeling.   

[TranquilMind]

No, she isn't.

 

Her job is and always has been to be a paper pusher.  To issue a marriage license to those seeking one.  It's never been her job to sit in moral judgment on anyone.  Just to provide the necessary form.  That's all, and it hasn't changed.

 

Her job has always been to issue marriage licenses to husbands and wives.  Suddenly, she is asked to issue the same marriage license to pairs who cannot be married (in her faith).  There is her quandary. 

 

She's handling it this way, and whether it is good or bad, is up for debate.  Personally, I think it is the wrong way to go about it, and she should just quit, but that's easier said than done in this crappy economy.

 

She is perfectly willing to do the job she has always done.  Suddenly, she is being asked to do something that cannot be done (in her faith tradition).  The goal posts have been moved.

[TranquilMind]

Your sexual urges are abhorrent and you should not have the same right I have. But I don't HATE you. See how that last part doesn't actually make it better???

The last part is the least significant.  The question to ask  and answer here is this hypothetical you pose  is, "Are my sexual urges abhorrent?"

[poppy]

I mean it in the sense that these people "suffered" a brief, inconvenient delay in acquiring licenses and now got what they wanted.

Hardly earth-shattering grievances.

What if you applied for a license and were told no because morally your wedding was forbidden. Would you see that more as a slap or a brief inconvenience?

[TranquilMind]

What if you applied for a license and were told no because morally your wedding was forbidden. Would you see that more as a slap or a brief inconvenience?

Well, I don't know.  What is the context?  Am I trying to force someone to give me a license despite his own conscience and all historical context? 

 

I can't unlaterally decide that what I want is the way it should be and I must be accommodated if it has always been the opposite and the prevailing culture and morality affirms the opposite of what I want. 

[poppy]

The last part is the least significant. The question to ask and answer here is this hypothetical you pose is, "Are my sexual urges abhorrent?"

Many , many people around the world hold the traditional belief that any female sexual pleasure is abhorrant. FGM is the result. I disagree with that , and with you.