Kim Davis

#201
#201
hog88 said:
I have yet to find out if KY County Clerks must issue marriage licensees but here in TN most of what I've come up with is "may issue" if, then the requirements. To me that would mean a TN County Clerk has the option to issue licenses or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

But state laws are some of the most asinine, backasswards **** I've ever read.

It's great that "the people" get to decide things for themselves, but if TN really functions as you say, then any geek with a clerk certification could deny any wedding they wish for whatever reason. Even if true, that's stupid.

Thinking more big picture, the way I look at this Supreme Court ruling (much like I look at Brown v. Topeka) is that, under the current laws of this nation, marriage is looked upon as a civil right. And should be treated as such.

Now, many may not think it is. And many may think that marriage shouldn't even be a government issue, but that leaves us with the following:

1. Since determined by law, marriage is a civil right under said law (and therefore same sex marriage is legal since adults are entitled to equal treatment under the law, due process, all that other legal jargon ****, etc.)

or,

2. Marriage, of any kind, is not a legal right guaranteed by law. Therefore, anyone can get married.

Either way, same outcome here at least.

Something tells me that social conservatives ought to just count their blessings and stick with Number 1 before the pedophiles and beast-lovers get too ornery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#204
#204
volprof said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is.

But state laws are some of the most asinine, backasswards **** I've ever read.

It's great that "the people" get to decide things for themselves, but if TN really functions as you say, then any geek with a clerk certification could deny any wedding they wish for whatever reason. Even if true, that's stupid.

Thinking more big picture, the way I look at this Supreme Court ruling (much like I look at Brown v. Topeka) is that, under the current laws of this nation, marriage is looked upon as a civil right. And should be treated as such.

Now, many may not think it is. And many may think that marriage shouldn't even be a government issue, but that leaves us with the following:

1. Since determined by law, marriage is a civil right under said law (and therefore same sex marriage is legal since adults are entitled to equal treatment under the law, due process, all that other legal jargon ****, etc.)

or,

2. Marriage, of any kind, is not a legal right guaranteed by law. Therefore, anyone can get married.

Either way, same outcome here at least.

Something tells me that social conservatives ought to just count their blessings and stick with Number 1 before the pedophiles and beast-lovers get too ornery.
Click to expand...

My ONLY point is the Federal Government specifically federal courts over reach into state issues.

If KY doesn't require clerks to issue licenses, they have the option not to. That makes it a state issue and not a federal one by any stretch of the imagination since she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses.

Even if the State of KY does require clerks to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples I don't see how this is a Fed issue since she was violating state law by not issuing any marriage licenses. The state should have went after her and a state judge should have held her in contempt, not a Federal one. She was never violating the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, if the state wasn't enforcing it's own law the Federal Courts could have possibly held the state in contempt but that wouldn't be politically feasible.
 
#205
#205
volinbham said:
Bill Clinton in 1996



No different than Westboro amirite?
Click to expand...

If Clinton really believed what he did at the time he signed DOMA and his rational for that belief was his faith, then yes his beliefs were in common with the beliefs of Westboro.

Once you regress the question as to why "one man and one woman" is the only acceptable form of marriage to christians - it should be pretty clear what the common source of that belief is.

Super simple stuff amirite?
 
Last edited:
#206
#206
hog88 said:
My ONLY point is the Federal Government specifically federal courts over reach into state issues.

If KY doesn't require clerks to issue licenses, they have the option not to. That makes it a state issue and not a federal one by any stretch of the imagination since she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses.

Even if the State of KY does require clerks to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples I don't see how this is a Fed issue since she was violating state law by not issuing any marriage licenses. The state should have went after her and a state judge should have held her in contempt, not a Federal one. She was never violating the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, if the state wasn't enforcing it's own law the Federal Courts could have possibly held the state in contempt but that wouldn't be politically feasible.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured you were getting at.

But I was going to give you a fair shake, unlike you ever give anyone else.

Stupid analysis from you once again.

What it most be like to live in your world. I'd give a dime to know.
 
#209
#209
volprof said:
Not a hypocrite?

1972 called. It wants its UT degree issued to you back.
Click to expand...
Her views may have evolved since her earlier days. That would not necessarily make her a hypocrite. Is a FORMER smoker a hypocrite if he tries to get someone to quit, or have his views evolved?

If she is a lesbian, she is either a hypocrite or against marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#211
#211
Septic said:
I'm not outraged about Davis at all, just the politicians condoning her shi77y behavior for the sake of a few cheap political points.

I think it's comedic gold that many in here wouldn't see the irony of a clerk not issuing concealed weapons permits or the like because he or she was a pacifist.

Rush would stroke out on the spot.
Click to expand...

Is there a religion out there that practices anti-gun pacifism as a basic tenet?
 
#212
#212
1972 Grad said:
To a liberal, it matters more what is in his heart.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what the heck you're referring to, but I can only imagine.

When I was being forced through the conservative/Evangelical religious machine as a child, I was always taught, for one, to believe in my heart.

Because Jesus is there.

You bunch don't believe in the heart anymore?

You don't believe in Jesus anymore?

My 12 year old former self is wounded right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
82_VOL_83 said:
Is there a religion out there that practices anti-gun pacifism as a basic tenet?
Click to expand...

I've seen Quakers mentioned a lot in the example.

There's also probably sects of Christianity that are anti-gun; not sure it's an explicit commandment but when you get into Christianity you get into a ton of self interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
hog88 said:
My ONLY point is the Federal Government specifically federal courts over reach into state issues.

If KY doesn't require clerks to issue licenses, they have the option not to. That makes it a state issue and not a federal one by any stretch of the imagination since she wasn't issuing any marriage licenses.

Even if the State of KY does require clerks to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples I don't see how this is a Fed issue since she was violating state law by not issuing any marriage licenses. The state should have went after her and a state judge should have held her in contempt, not a Federal one. She was never violating the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, if the state wasn't enforcing it's own law the Federal Courts could have possibly held the state in contempt but that wouldn't be politically feasible.
Click to expand...

This is a good point because I don't think the federal law says that a state is required to issue marriage licenses. Just that it is legal to do so.
 
#216
#216
gcbvol said:
Again, as almost always the case in these situations, it's about low hanging fruit. Easy 'sin' to focus righteous condemnation and make a holy stand. Then erroneously claim religious persecution when called on your own persecution of others. And, yes, I know persecution is a misused term on both counts, but it's been tossed around frequently duing this debacle so decided to play along.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Reminds me of all the sermons I sat through earlier in life where the preacher would rail against alcohol, knowing that no one in the congregation drank one drop of the stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#219
#219
volprof said:
I don't even know what the heck you're referring to, but I can only imagine.

When I was being forced through the conservative/Evangelical religious machine as a child, I was always taught, for one, to believe in my heart.

Because Jesus is there.

You bunch don't believe in the heart anymore?

You don't believe in Jesus anymore?

My 12 year old former self is wounded right now.
Click to expand...
I was answering in response to a previous poster saying that Bill Clinton didn't really mean it when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Read my post in that context, and you might "even know what the heck I was referring to."
 
#224
#224
1972 Grad said:
No, just she isn't a hypocrite on gay marriage, since she hasn't ever been married to a woman.
Click to expand...

Yes, because when it comes to gay marriage and her, THAT is the only way she can be a hypocrite when it comes to her beliefs of the sanctity of marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#225
#225
1972 Grad said:
Her views may have evolved since her earlier days. That would not necessarily make her a hypocrite. Is a FORMER smoker a hypocrite if he tries to get someone to quit, or have his views evolved?

If she is a lesbian, she is either a hypocrite or against marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm about to Donald Trump your rear:

You're having a hard time. You're looking very bad tonight.

Yes, she's a hypocrite. Stop trying to manipulate your bizarre personal opinion on same-sex marriage and this woman's behavior to meet your pre-conceived ideas.

I'm going to guess you didn't think your analogy through very well.

Yes, a former smoker is a hypocrite if he or she denies another smoker the access to smoke and then goes on to lecture them about how bad smoking is. He or she can disagree with it and express that opinion. And that's fine. That's not hypocritical. But to deny a smoker access when you had it, would be.

You can't do something, change your mind, then deny other people said something.

That's cheap.

The fact that you defend such a low-life says a lot about you.

Says that you're never willing to compromise on anything and only believe in your dogma, despite any new evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top