Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (11 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (11 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (11 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (11 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (11 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (11 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (11 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (11 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (11 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (11 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (11 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (11 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (11 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (11 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (11 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (11 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (11 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (11 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (11 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (11 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (11 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (11 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (11 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (11 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (11 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (11 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (11 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (11 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (11 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (11 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (11 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (11 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (11 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (11 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (11 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (11 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (11 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (11 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (11 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (11 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (11 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (11 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (11 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (11 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (11 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (11 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (11 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (11 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (11 years ago) Permalink

I doubt it's a lifetime sinecure. Her value as a symbol of resistance will fade to nothing long before she dies, because the cause she's backing will fade away before too long. It will result in a rising tide of money over the next X weeks as the media circus continues.

Aimless, Friday, 4 September 2015 00:54 (5 months ago) Permalink

her punishment shoulda been to serve as a stagehand for the touring version of La Cage Aux Folles for a year.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 01:10 (5 months ago) Permalink

Have you seen her? She may not live very long.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 September 2015 01:26 (5 months ago) Permalink

yeah, it was kinda like looking upon the wreck of the Ella Fitzgerald

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 01:41 (5 months ago) Permalink

Edmund...christ.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 02:24 (5 months ago) Permalink

Edmund Christ, younger brother of Jesus, never amounted to much

go hang a salami I'm a canal, adam (silby), Friday, 4 September 2015 02:28 (5 months ago) Permalink

Don't underestimate a woman's longevity. Unless she's big smoker and boozer, the chances are good she'll hit at least 80, if not 90.

Aimless, Friday, 4 September 2015 03:16 (5 months ago) Permalink

i can't believe "wreck of the ella fitzgerald" is not a punk band or something

Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Friday, 4 September 2015 03:27 (5 months ago) Permalink

It's a joke in Love and Rockets iirc

Οὖτις, Friday, 4 September 2015 03:44 (5 months ago) Permalink

Ms. Davis remained in jail on Friday, and her husband said Friday that his wife planned to stay “as long as it takes” until a law was passed that gave county clerks like her the option not to issue marriage licenses that violated their religious convictions.

“She has done her job,” he said. “Just because five Supreme Court judges make a ruling, it’s not a law.”

go back to jr. high civics class, do not pass go

Οὖτις, Friday, 4 September 2015 15:40 (5 months ago) Permalink

wow

Flamenco Drop (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 4 September 2015 19:33 (5 months ago) Permalink

her 4th husband btw

usic ally (k3vin k.), Friday, 4 September 2015 19:53 (5 months ago) Permalink

Collect them all!

Norse Jung (Eric H.), Friday, 4 September 2015 19:54 (5 months ago) Permalink

only God makes laws, iirc

sleeve, Friday, 4 September 2015 20:00 (5 months ago) Permalink

planned to stay “as long as it takes” until a law was passed that gave county clerks like her the option not to issue marriage licenses

She has obviously not paid attention to how long it takes to pass a law, even under the best circumstances.

Aimless, Friday, 4 September 2015 20:02 (5 months ago) Permalink

that law has no hope of passage or being upheld, it's so sad how people can't follow basic legal logic

Οὖτις, Friday, 4 September 2015 20:06 (5 months ago) Permalink

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

Οὖτις, Friday, 4 September 2015 20:07 (5 months ago) Permalink

maybe she's hoping Nino will dress as the Dark Nought and spring her.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 September 2015 20:41 (5 months ago) Permalink

https://twitter.com/kimdavis917/status/640312688539623424

is this real

j., Sunday, 6 September 2015 02:47 (5 months ago) Permalink

certainly looks real. no hint of irony.

Aimless, Sunday, 6 September 2015 04:50 (5 months ago) Permalink

that Twitter account has to be fake

(extremely nerds voice) (Clay), Sunday, 6 September 2015 05:38 (5 months ago) Permalink

yeah it's fake, go ahead and look up the bible verses she mentions

(extremely nerds voice) (Clay), Sunday, 6 September 2015 05:41 (5 months ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/08/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail/

Bunning handled this p cleverly imo - basically demoted her

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 17:44 (5 months ago) Permalink

I'm curious what kinda tone the rally will take; will they soldier on blindly as persecution or do this as victory? Or both?

Purves Grundy (kingfish), Tuesday, 8 September 2015 19:26 (5 months ago) Permalink

how dare the court prevent Kim Davis from not doing her job

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 19:28 (5 months ago) Permalink

queers are gettin married in the county, can't see how they can spin that as a victory

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 19:28 (5 months ago) Permalink

CNN is/watch broadcasting this shit live

Purves Grundy (kingfish), Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:55 (5 months ago) Permalink

Is/was, rather

Purves Grundy (kingfish), Tuesday, 8 September 2015 21:17 (5 months ago) Permalink

Not a victory for them but they are spinning it that way.

Her original goal was not to let marriage certificates leave her office because she had to rubber stamp them, which she viewed as participation. So her clerks couldn't either...RFRA case law shit all over that.

Now they have changed it to a rubber stamp that doesn't bear her name or post, just the office, and many of the ones signed when she was in jail had her place left blank.

and she and her lawyer are saying these are null and void without her stamp of approval. It has fuck all to do with her personal beliefs - she just wants to stop anybody gay from getting married in her building.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:28 (5 months ago) Permalink

problem is it's not "her" building

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:30 (5 months ago) Permalink

It's GOD'S!

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:30 (5 months ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:32 (5 months ago) Permalink

so there's bumpkins with leaky brains actually protesting outside the Judge's house, asking the sheriff to take him to jail.

this would be the conservative Judge who likely doesn't agree with the SCOTUS ruling himself but understands how the law works.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:19 (5 months ago) Permalink

Madonna's brother has opinions:

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," Christopher Ciccone, who is gay, wrote in a Facebook post. "The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:15 (5 months ago) Permalink

the right to inform her deputies to put themselves at legal risk and not issue marriage licenses

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:18 (5 months ago) Permalink

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

Aimless, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:11 (5 months ago) Permalink

like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is... complicated? there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs." not to mention people working in a fundamentally unjust or murderous system, like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

it's not davis's unwillingness to "do her job" that makes her wrong IMO, it's the nature of what she will and won't do. the biggest problem is simply that she cites her religious beliefs, nothing more or less, in rationalizing her unwillingness to perform her duties. that makes her stance conflict with what judges have, for a long time now, considered a basic principle of the rule of law.

but in any case this is all a sideshow. the more compelling fact, IMO, is how many state, county, and other officials--who may disagree with the supreme court ruling and/or may hold deep-seated prejudices against gays and lesbians--are going along with the ruling. they amount to a consensus, which the media focus on davis obscures. so really, we should be celebrating. (though i admit it's somehow both angering and deeply satisfying to contemplate the awesome ignorance of davis and those who have rallied to her.)

wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:37 (5 months ago) Permalink

there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs."

I don't see how this is relevant or analogous, really

like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.

Similarly these were regimes/instances of the gov't acting in an explicitly illegal manner, the rule of law had gone out the window (again, not the case here, much as Davis' supporters would suggest otherwise. There has been no coup, no agency acting beyond its legal bounds)

and I didn't say it was her unwillingness to do her job that makes her wrong, it's her insistence that it is simultaneously her right to HAVE that job AND not do it.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:55 (5 months ago) Permalink

but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:57 (5 months ago) Permalink

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:59 (5 months ago) Permalink

since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision

When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!

― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 10 September 2015 23:22 (5 months ago) Permalink

are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um

― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM

No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 September 2015 00:33 (5 months ago) Permalink

Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 22:31 (4 months ago) Permalink

She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?

Aimless, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:33 (4 months ago) Permalink

Jesus

Οὖτις, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (4 months ago) Permalink

her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.

but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (4 months ago) Permalink

lol

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (4 months ago) Permalink

is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 21 September 2015 23:27 (4 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.