Kentucky clerk appeals order putting her in jail

[sgtsabai]

Apologies, I didn't proof read. Not 2 loving couples, 2 loving individuals. Although a threesome is very nice.

[Jonmarleesco]

So on what grounds is she appealing?

Afflicted with GLBT intolerance syndrome.

You think? Or just their being permitted to marry. I'm not a state official, nor ever have been, but governments certainly have many more important things with which to concern themselves than addressing the wants of a vociferous minority, who could already legally live together in civil partnerships; and receive the benefits afforded a conventional married couple. Dave the Rave, though, seemed blissfully unaware of that as he spent several days of valuable parliamentary time in the last UK government pursuing a vote to legalise gay marriage, irrespective of far more important issues.

And to nip the obvious response in the bud - I know, and like, a number of gay members of the community.

[Jingthing]

So by your absurd logic straight people don't "need" to get married either. But many want to. It's called EQUALITY dude.

Also, vociferous minority? That's BIGOTED rhetoric. Very revealing. It's pretty much the same thing as saying black people are UPPITY.

The core of this backlash against totally fair basic civil rights for GLBT (globally) and the fight really has just begun is that the haters against these civil rights propose that opposing their bigoted opinions is also a form of bigotry. That needs to be totally rejected. The core truth here is that intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance ... it's needed.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

"And to nip the obvious response in the bud - I know, and like, a number of gay members of the community." Is that kinda' like "I have black friends". Dawg whistle!

[Jingthing]

"And to nip the obvious response in the bud - I know, and like, a number of gay members of the community." Is that kinda' like "I have black friends". Dawg whistle!

Do these "friends" know he goes on internet forums and openly opposes equal civil rights for them?

I will add to this that there are many gay people who don't want to ever get married and were not attracted to the marriage equality movement because it seemed like to much of a mainstreaming movement and some relish being outsiders. But that said, it is a rare GLBT person who would not want other GLBT to have the right to marry if that is what THEY wished. That would be mean spirited, wouldn't it? Straight people too, opposing this for other citizens ... I can't see that as anything other than mean spirited.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post and the replies to it.

[Jingthing]

You are wrong.

The official democratic party platform (Obama 2012):

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#protecting-rights

Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Note the language about religious freedom. That is about how religious institutions deal with marriage. That is SEPARATE to how the STATE deals with it. That's the line this bigot lady wants to cross. She will not get away with it.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[IAMHERE]

Let us all be thankful to God almighty that she isn't enforcing Sharia Law on all the Kentuckians.

[squarethecircle]

I'm still with Ulysses G here. Same sex "marriages" do not have the counterbalance of man and woman so they have a very high rate of promiscuity. If they would agree to the same sex "union" it would be a compromise, but they're being more fanatical, like the Christian bakers in Oregon, that just seemed mean-spirited to try to destroy them like that.

The way they declare anyone who disagrees to be "bigots" worthy of punishment is - ironically - the same way fanatical religions persecute heretics.

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.

[Jingthing]

Fighting for equal civil rights under the law is fanatical. Amazing!

News flash. Marriage equality in the US already happened. No point now in discussing compromise schemes.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[Expat1]

"Civil rights are civil rights and they are not subject to belief," said James Yates, who got a marriage license on Friday after having been denied five times previously.

I could not have stated the new American way better. The govt and the US media will do all your believing for you.

[thaibeachlovers]

I see that twerp Huckabee is giving her his full support.

I'm sure she's elated, after he was so forgiving of serial paedophile and adulterer Josh Duggar.

He hasn't got a very good record for picking winners, has he?

It is a Christians duty to forgive those that repent of their sins, which Duggar did. You don't seem to know much about Christianity.

Huckabee professes to be a Christian, which makes me wonder why he is so pro Israeli. You can't support a different religion if you really believe in your own, which is not the same thing as accepting people's RIGHT to have a different religion.

[thaibeachlovers]

So by your absurd logic straight people don't "need" to get married either. But many want to. It's called EQUALITY dude.

Also, vociferous minority? That's BIGOTED rhetoric. Very revealing. It's pretty much the same thing as saying black people are UPPITY.

The core of this backlash against totally fair basic civil rights for GLBT (globally) and the fight really has just begun is that the haters against these civil rights propose that opposing their bigoted opinions is also a form of bigotry. That needs to be totally rejected. The core truth here is that intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance ... it's needed.

Other than the name, what is the difference between a civil union and 'marriage'? Unless there are legal differences what is the big deal? Lots of non homosexuals have a registry wedding, which is nothing to do with religion. Why is it so necessary for homosexuals to have a religious ceremony?

I've said it before, but marriage is a crock of poo, IMO, and they are welcome to the whole steaming pile of crud that only benefits divorce lawyers.

In New Zealand there is no legal difference between being married and living together for more than 2 years. In fact, being "married" confers no benefit legally, and is pretty meaningless in the larger picture.

Edited September 8, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[Jingthing]

The difference? Thousands of legal rights that instantly go into effect when married. There used to be gay civil unions in some US states. Each one of those thousands of instant marriage rights would need to be separately legislated. Meaning anything even close to equality with marriage was never going to happen. With actual marriage the rights covered from the local to the federal and even sometimes the international level. Stop this waste of time debating whether same sex marriage should exist. Too late!!! It does exist now in all 50 states and it has absolutely nothing to do with forcing religions to perform ceremonies for people they don't wish to. Before making inane commentary about marriage law in the USA perhaps first learn what it us. The USA is not a theocracy.

I think many non Americans fail to understand the 50 state laws situation in the US and the fact that only a dramatic and definite federal action such as SCOTUS took was the only practical solution.

Also who cares if you think all marriage is poo? Many people want to get married. Nobody is forcing you to marry.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

Perhaps some might like reading what real Constitutional attorneys say and an op-ed I agree with. Then again, those on the right wing extreme edge won't like. This "person" does not want religious freedom, she wants faux "christian" sharia. Freedom from religion, always and forever!

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/09/06/county-clerk-who-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license-to-gay-couple-says-she-will-remain-in-jail-so-be-it/

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/09/07/kim-davis-hero-or-villain/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/04/kim-davis-is-not-a-christian-martyr-the-kentucky-court-clerk-deserves-to-be-in-the-clink.html?via=newsletter&source=CSPMedition

[sgtsabai]

apologies again, I have a hard time spell checking and cannot edit for some reason on this forum. forever!

[Chicog]

I see that twerp Huckabee is giving her his full support.

I'm sure she's elated, after he was so forgiving of serial paedophile and adulterer Josh Duggar.

He hasn't got a very good record for picking winners, has he?

It is a Christians duty to forgive those that repent of their sins, which Duggar did. You don't seem to know much about Christianity.

Huckabee professes to be a Christian, which makes me wonder why he is so pro Israeli. You can't support a different religion if you really believe in your own, which is not the same thing as accepting people's RIGHT to have a different religion.

Comical in the hypocrites world isn't it? You can molest your sisters and cheat on your wife (and even cheat on the woman you're cheating with), but say you're sorry and you have people like Huckabee fighting your corner.

Unbelievable.

[notmyself]

[thaibeachlovers]

The difference? Thousands of legal rights that instantly go into effect when married. There used to be gay civil unions in some US states. Each one of those thousands of instant marriage rights would need to be separately legislated. Meaning anything even close to equality with marriage was never going to happen. With actual marriage the rights covered from the local to the federal and even sometimes the international level. Stop this waste of time debating whether same sex marriage should exist. Too late!!! It does exist now in all 50 states and it has absolutely nothing to do with forcing religions to perform ceremonies for people they don't wish to. Before making inane commentary about marriage law in the USA perhaps first learn what it us. The USA is not a theocracy.

I think many non Americans fail to understand the 50 state laws situation in the US and the fact that only a dramatic and definite federal action such as SCOTUS took was the only practical solution.

Also who cares if you think all marriage is poo? Many people want to get married. Nobody is forcing you to marry.

I'm commenting on marriage as a world situation, not just marriage in the US. However, as this thread is about the clerk and her religious views, marriage per se is off topic, so I won't comment further on this thread about marriage, except to say there are 50% of married men that regret having ever signed that piece of paper.

[thaibeachlovers]

I have been doing some research on marriage in the US and found some interesting things.

Marriage is not covered in the Constitution, and was left to the individual States to decide on, so, actually, SCOTUS has no legal right to be interfering in marriage law in the first place, and secondly, MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution, so it is covered by one of the amendments ( first I think ) to be decided by RELIGIOUS institutions- ie Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Christians etc etc have different marriage rules.

Therefore, it comes down to the individual states to decide about civil unions between whomever, and the Federal government is sticking it's beak in where it doesn't belong.

Strictly speaking there is no RIGHT to be married, which is why people have to get a licence ( permission ) to do so. Even before marriage became legislated, which is a new thing compared to the length of time marriage has been in existence, and was a RELIGIOUS institution ( living together without religious approval was a no no ), the Church had to give permission for two people to get married, and it was usually for the purpose of having children. The modern idea of getting married without having children would have been looked on as a bit strange centuries ago.

Personally, I think the whole 'marriage" thing on TV has become confused. Are we talking about homosexual marriage by a religious institution, which goes against the core beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, whatever people might wish, or "married" in a legal sense, but not in a religious establishment?

It makes a difference.

For myself, I don't care at all if homosexuals get married in an office, but I don't see why any homosexual would want to get married in a Church, given that religious institutions officially condemn them to death, usually in unpleasant ways.

[stevenl]

I have been doing some research on marriage in the US and found some interesting things.

Marriage is not covered in the Constitution, and was left to the individual States to decide on, so, actually, SCOTUS has no legal right to be interfering in marriage law in the first place, and secondly, MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution, so it is covered by one of the amendments ( first I think ) to be decided by RELIGIOUS institutions- ie Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Christians etc etc have different marriage rules.

Therefore, it comes down to the individual states to decide about civil unions between whomever, and the Federal government is sticking it's beak in where it doesn't belong.

Strictly speaking there is no RIGHT to be married, which is why people have to get a licence ( permission ) to do so. Even before marriage became legislated, which is a new thing compared to the length of time marriage has been in existence, and was a RELIGIOUS institution ( living together without religious approval was a no no ), the Church had to give permission for two people to get married, and it was usually for the purpose of having children. The modern idea of getting married without having children would have been looked on as a bit strange centuries ago.

Personally, I think the whole 'marriage" thing on TV has become confused. Are we talking about homosexual marriage by a religious institution, which goes against the core beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, whatever people might wish, or "married" in a legal sense, but not in a religious establishment?

It makes a difference.

For myself, I don't care at all if homosexuals get married in an office, but I don't see why any homosexual would want to get married in a Church, given that religious institutions officially condemn them to death, usually in unpleasant ways.

Looking at your question, you really have no idea what is about, if you have to ask whether it is about a religious or civil marriage.

[thaibeachlovers]

I have been doing some research on marriage in the US and found some interesting things.

Marriage is not covered in the Constitution, and was left to the individual States to decide on, so, actually, SCOTUS has no legal right to be interfering in marriage law in the first place, and secondly, MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution, so it is covered by one of the amendments ( first I think ) to be decided by RELIGIOUS institutions- ie Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Christians etc etc have different marriage rules.

Therefore, it comes down to the individual states to decide about civil unions between whomever, and the Federal government is sticking it's beak in where it doesn't belong.

Strictly speaking there is no RIGHT to be married, which is why people have to get a licence ( permission ) to do so. Even before marriage became legislated, which is a new thing compared to the length of time marriage has been in existence, and was a RELIGIOUS institution ( living together without religious approval was a no no ), the Church had to give permission for two people to get married, and it was usually for the purpose of having children. The modern idea of getting married without having children would have been looked on as a bit strange centuries ago.

Personally, I think the whole 'marriage" thing on TV has become confused. Are we talking about homosexual marriage by a religious institution, which goes against the core beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, whatever people might wish, or "married" in a legal sense, but not in a religious establishment?

It makes a difference.

For myself, I don't care at all if homosexuals get married in an office, but I don't see why any homosexual would want to get married in a Church, given that religious institutions officially condemn them to death, usually in unpleasant ways.

Looking at your question, you really have no idea what is about, if you have to ask whether it is about a religious or civil marriage.

If I knew I wouldn't have asked. Next...................

[notmyself]

MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution

Quite some assertion which I look forward to you proving.

Edited September 9, 2015 by notmyself

[thaibeachlovers]

MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution

Quite some assertion which I look forward to you proving.

Don't have to prove it. Marriage has been a religious institution for centuries. Non religious "legal" marriage has only been around for a short while in comparison.

[JDGRUEN]

The Clerk was released from Jail ... no link ... Just Google it

[Jingthing]

The SCOTUS was about governmental marriage legalization. Nothing about forcing churches etc. what to do. Perhaps learn the basics before commenting here. The US is a country of laws. There is no need to involve any religious institution at all in legalizing your marriage there. The bigot lady is trying and will fail to impose her religious fanaticism on a secular government matter. It's not that complicated. She cannot do that.

[notmyself]

MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS institution

Quite some assertion which I look forward to you proving.

Don't have to prove it. Marriage has been a religious institution for centuries. Non religious "legal" marriage has only been around for a short while in comparison.

Cool. Marriage predates religious belief and I do not have to prove it.

[DirtyDan]

Western society supposedly lives under the assumption that religion and state are separate entities. As such, any marriage in the eyes of the legal system, is simply a contract binding between the two individuals and recognized by the state for certain legal benefits (property, pensions, etc.).

How people choose to celebrate the forming of that legal contract is up to those people. Call the contract anything you want; marriage, union, common-law, and celebrate it any way you want; in a church or garden or in front of a courthouse, but in the end, if the government is truly separated from religion, the contract should be between any two individuals that want it.

Now, if some random religion proclaims that the contract is only valid between adults of the opposite sex, what bearing should that have on the government's view?

Many people frown at Countries under the modern take of Sharia law, what's the difference between this case of someone pushing their personal views on marriage and somewhere else in the world where "my religion" allows me to marry 3 brides and an 11 year old girl? Which religion is the correct one?

Edited September 9, 2015 by DirtyDan

[stevenl]

The Clerk was released from Jail ... no link ... Just Google it

No need to google, Thai Visa was fast: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/854600-kentucky-clerk-who-fought-gay-marriage-is-released-from-jail/