TOTALLY GEEKED!

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

RE: America has never been a 'Christian' nation. Kim Davis picked the wrong issue

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's about compromise flan. They get their license and the right to wed and she doesn't have to be a part of signing it. Win/win right? Wrong. They are fighting to make her sign. Which tells me it's NOT about getting married and being happy. It's about bullying someone else.

I don't know their motivations, BUT there are other instances where groups who have been discriminated against for years decide to make a stand.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's about compromise flan. They get their license and the right to wed and she doesn't have to be a part of signing it. Win/win right? Wrong. They are fighting to make her sign. Which tells me it's NOT about getting married and being happy. It's about bullying someone else.
I don't know their motivations, BUT there are other instances where groups who have been discriminated against for years decide to make a stand.
flan

By discriminating against someone else?

Ohfour · Hooker

Funny how these people SCREAM tolerance, yet have none for anyone that doesn't toe their line...

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's about compromise flan. They get their license and the right to wed and she doesn't have to be a part of signing it. Win/win right? Wrong. They are fighting to make her sign. Which tells me it's NOT about getting married and being happy. It's about bullying someone else.
I don't know their motivations, BUT there are other instances where groups who have been discriminated against for years decide to make a stand.
flan
By discriminating against someone else?

So let me get this straight... Just because gay people haven't had the "right" to marry up until now and now that they do have it it's somehow okay to take rights away from other people? Yes, that makes perfect sense.

And I DO know the motives of the two men in the Kim Davis case as I have watched interviews with them.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I also have a problem with the statement "make a stand". You can make a stand without being a bully. Let's not disguise it and pretend it's something it's not. They are being bullies.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I also have a problem with the statement "make a stand". You can make a stand without being a bully. Let's not disguise it and pretend it's something it's not. They are being bullies.

Rosa Parks managed to do it, but she was incredible.

I have not seen any interviews with them, so I'll trust your judgment.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

They took their stand. They did. And they accomplished what they wanted. They forced the hand and they got, earned, and won the right to get a license. That should have been good enough for them. They should have stopped at that point. Now they look petty and immature.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And Rosa Parks was anything BUT a bully.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
And Rosa Parks was anything BUT a bully.

Yes, I agree. She was the first person who popped into my mind.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Rosa Parks wasn't a bully. Once she earned the right to side anywhere on the bus she didn't say to the white people that now THEY belong at the back of the bus. These guys are bullies. Plain and simple.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
It's about compromise flan. They get their license and the right to wed and she doesn't have to be a part of signing it. Win/win right? Wrong. They are fighting to make her sign. Which tells me it's NOT about getting married and being happy. It's about bullying someone else.
I don't know their motivations, BUT there are other instances where groups who have been discriminated against for years decide to make a stand.
flan

Complete BS. It's not about their rights--it's about their taking away the rights of someone else. Freedom of religion and speech are on their way out. If you don't conform to the liberal group think mentality, you will be faced with court actions, or worse.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Find a theocracy & move?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment. Maybe you should move since you dont like our very Constitution. ..

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Find a theocracy & move?

flan

You are the one who hates America. Shouldn't you be the one that moves? I've been wondering why you stay here if it's such a horrible place.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment. Maybe you should move since you dont like our very Constitution. ..

I don't try to force my beliefs on others.

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment. Maybe you should move since you dont like our very Constitution. ..
I don't try to force my beliefs on others.
flan

I'm sorry but yes you do.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

All I can say is that I have no sympathy whatsoever for these two guy suing Kim Davis. They've won their rights. Now they're being petty and mean.

Another thing. When they were protesting her, actively picketing in front of her office she went to the store with her own money and bought bottled water for all the picketers. Admirable.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Fine, when you decide to impeach Obama for ignoring his constitutional duties and laws, let me know. Until then, I am not going to worry about Kim Davis.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_________________________

I'm not a Representative. The House of Representatives is the only body that can do that. But I wish they would impeach him. I think you may be confusing me with an Obama-lover. I assure you that I am far from one of those.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Pure BS. Voters absolutely get to decide rights. How do you think the bill of rights came about in the first place?
- huskerbb

______________________

My memory of history class is getting a bit sketchy in my older years, but if I recall correctly the Bill of Rights were decided upon by the delegates, because the Constitution was a bit vague in how it protected the people. The Bill of Rights wasn't voted upon by the masses.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I would like to see the law that says she has to issue marriage licenses period...
- Ohfour

__________________________

Granted, this pre-dates the Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage, and obviously hasn't been adjusted to reflect the possible unions of two men, but here's your answer.

From the Kentucky Statutes:
402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

Under penalties there's also this which would seem to say that a deputy clerk actually cannot issue under their own authority, but it must be under the authority of the clerk:
(8) If any deputy clerk or any person other than a county clerk knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of this chapter, but not for a prohibited marriage, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and if he knowingly issues a license for a marriage prohibited by this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?

cadiver · Senior Member

From what I can tell by the ACLU filing there was no problem with having the license without her name. This is the format the office was issuing while she was in jail.

Instead of her name it lists Rowan County.

Everyone seemed to accept the format the, the office issued them and the judge released her.

Once she was released she changed the form:

She eliminated the reference to Rowan County, the clerks office, added the Pursuant line and had the Deputy Clerk title change to Notary Public. The ACLU filed suit to have the license issued as they were previously.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Why does the couple have to have her name on it? Again, why? They got what they wanted. A legally issued marriage license. Now they are taking her back to court because her name is not on it. If it is a legal document giving them a right to legally wed why do they need to sue again? What more can be accomplished other than spite. Yes, they did get what they wanted. A legal marriage license. Now they are BACK in court because her name is not on it. And they said they will not stop until her name is on it. That is being a bully.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
They WANT her to FOLLOW THE LAW.

flan
And there's the problem. Again, they want special treatment.
They don't want just any clerk to issue their license. They want HER to issue it so they can FORCE her to bend to THEIR will.
Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Deal with it.
She REFUSES to do her JOB.
Deal with it.
flan

No. She REFUSES to VIOLATE her RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Again, freedom of religion. Deal with it.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And SHE did not change that. The governor/mayor or whoever changed it. Not her. That was their compromise. That it would read according to federal law. If it's legal what is the big deal? They removed Rowan County Clerk so that she would not have to have anything to do with it. It is a legal document. They are trying to force her to take part of it.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Why does the couple have to have her name on it? Again, why? They got what they wanted. A legally issued marriage license. Now they are taking her back to court because her name is not on it. If it is a legal document giving them a right to legally wed why do they need to sue again? What more can be accomplished other than spite. Yes, they did get what they wanted. A legal marriage license. Now they are BACK in court because her name is not on it. And they said they will not stop until her name is on it. That is being a bully.

I agree. They're being bullies.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And even if she DID change the form, which she didn't, as long as the higher ups have approved it, which they did, it is LEGAL.

I guess I fail to see where the problem is if you can obtain a valid legal document. Other than to bitch incessantly.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I'm telling you, I backed these people until they started with this. This is pure utter nonsense BS. What they are saying now is that they DON'T have equality because all the marriage licenses issued before this had the county courthouse listed. So now they want to go BACKWARDS and make the courts put the county clerk on there so they have backwards equality! When is this crap ever going to end? She did a stint in jail. You got your gay marriage license. WTF more do you want? I'm telling you people are going to get tired of this nonsense and it will backfire on them and in a big way. You get what you want and you're still unhappy? Well, that's on you. Too bad.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And on the interview with the two guys they said this was all about getting legally wed. They had the whole wedding planned, picked out, and paid for. They were only waiting on the license so they could go live the rest of their lives in peace as a family. WTH happened to that? You got your license and let it expire. I guess you really DIDN'T want to get married. You were too busy trying to bully someone else into doing what you wanted to even bother getting married.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?

Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.

Sure it does (flame suit on)

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

Westboro Baptist Church is going to picket her workplace Monday.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)

No. It doesnt.

As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.

That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.

Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.

It is a PRIVILEGE.

Two totally different things.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

That's your OPINION.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
That's your OPINION.

flan

Uh, no it's not. It's fact. Read the Constitution.

ed11563 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)
No. It doesnt.
As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.
That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.
Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.
It is a PRIVILEGE.
Two totally different things.

What about equal treatment under the law?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)
No. It doesnt.
As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.
That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.
Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.
It is a PRIVILEGE.
Two totally different things.
What about equal treatment under the law?

They have equal treatment. What they want is SPECIAL treatment.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)
No. It doesnt.
As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.
That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.
Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.
It is a PRIVILEGE.
Two totally different things.
What about equal treatment under the law?
They have equal treatment. What they want is SPECIAL treatment.

Being allowed to marry the person of their mutual choice is "special" treatment?

Normal for you, but "special" for them?

Ohfour · Hooker

They were absolutely allowed to marry the person of their choice. They wanted HER signature, even if the state didn't require it. They could have gotten married with a county stamp. They didn't want that. Yes, that is special treatment.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)
No. It doesnt.
As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.
That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.
Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.
It is a PRIVILEGE.
Two totally different things.
What about equal treatment under the law?

They have equal treatment.

Neither, no one, not a single, solitary person has the RIGHT to marry.

At all.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Freedom of RELIGION is the first amendment.
- Ohfour

_________________________

Agreed.

Which Amendment says we have the right, through our work as a government official, to force our religion on others?
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
Sure it does (flame suit on)
No. It doesnt.
As a matter of fact, marriage of any kind is not even mentioned.
That's the thing that everyone can't seem to quite grasp.
Marriage is NOT a RIGHT.
It is a PRIVILEGE.
Two totally different things.
What about equal treatment under the law?
They have equal treatment. What they want is SPECIAL treatment.
Being allowed to marry the person of their mutual choice is "special" treatment?
Normal for you, but "special" for them?

They gained the privilege to legally marry.

However, they didn't gain the RIGHT to marry.

And as seen here, there are those who want to force acceptance.

Those few people need to back up. They need to stop taking a mile every time they gain an inch.

Cause all it does is make the whole lot of them look bad.

burns07 · Guru

wonder how sharia law would address this little problem the boys are having............................

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Ohfour wrote:
They were absolutely allowed to marry the person of their choice. They wanted HER signature, even if the state didn't require it. They could have gotten married with a county stamp. They didn't want that. Yes, that is special treatment.

So if I want Obama to sign my license I can bitch and whine and moan and say I deserve it? Absolutely not. Life doesn't work like that. They gave these two idiots a legal license. The idiots didn't want THAT license. Even though it was legal they didn't want it. They wouldn't accept it without her signature. So I guess they can go to the corner and pout. No court or judge in the country is going to side with them.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
- huskerbb

_________________________________

I agree. The constitution also doesn't say marriage between a man and a woman is legal. I believe that makes your point moot.

WYSIWYG · Guru

They have equal treatment. What they want is SPECIAL treatment.
- Lawyerlady

_____________________________

They want to get married to the person they want to share their life with. How is that asking for any more "special treatment" then when a man and a woman ask the same thing?

I agree it's against God. I agree with you there. But we don't live in a theocracy (thank God) and I am specifically asking about the secular/legal aspect.

WYSIWYG · Guru

They were absolutely allowed to marry the person of their choice. They wanted HER signature, even if the state didn't require it. They could have gotten married with a county stamp. They didn't want that. Yes, that is special treatment.
-Ohfour

___________________________

Who's signature and office title appears on marriage certificates issued prior to the ruling? They wanted the same as anyone else got before the ruling. That's not "special treatment".

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

It IS special treatment. The courts decided she had the right to not sign something that went against her religious beliefs. That right was established by the court. They could get a legal document stating they had the right to marry. I do not have the right to walk into an office and demand that someone that worked there six years ago come sign my document just because I want to prove a point. That's not how the law works. They want special treatment and no court in the US is going to give it to them.

What if she was sick that day? What if she quit? What if she died? You gonna dig her up from the ground and take her to court and force her to sign it? You don't want rights. You want to be right and you want to be a bully.

No one's rights trumped anyone elses here. They wanted a license so the government fixed it so they could get it with no problem. Kim Davis didn't want her signature or title on it. That was her right too. The government fixed it so everyone could get what they SAID they wanted. But that's not what they really wanted. What they really wanted was to FORCE someone to not only accept but approve of their lifestyle. You don't get to do that. You can get a license but you can't demand that a certain person give it to you.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
- huskerbb

_________________________________

I agree. The constitution also doesn't say marriage between a man and a woman is legal. I believe that makes your point moot.

No, it doesn't. what has changed in 200 years? Nothing but our fvcked up perception of what is normal--when really its a perversion.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

WYSIWYG wrote:
Where does it say gay marriage is legal in the constitution? It does not.
- huskerbb

_________________________________

I agree. The constitution also doesn't say marriage between a man and a woman is legal. I believe that makes your point moot.

I addressed this.

It most definitely does not make anything moot.

Not a single person in this country has the RIGHT to marry.