| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder...
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a religious commitment to pacifism? It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses. Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped. I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a constitutionally mandated service from a local government. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right. It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first place.. Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you are opposed to it. They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them. As I believe you have pointed out before, the gov shouldn't even be in the marriage business. To them, marriage is just a contract that two folks enter into, and when they do, a set of laws govern how the parties interact. Leave it at that, problem solved. Want to be "married"? Find a church that will do it in the eyes of God. Why can't someone in DC figure that out? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a religious commitment to pacifism? It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses. Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped. I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a constitutionally mandated service from a local government. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right. It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first place.. Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you are opposed to it. They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them. At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then... But we aren't there. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a religious commitment to pacifism? It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses. Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped. I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a constitutionally mandated service from a local government. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right. It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first place.. Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you are opposed to it. They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them. At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then... But we aren't there. Why say marriage license? It is a civil contract. Until the 1880's you could have multiple spouses, and no license required. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:03:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a religious commitment to pacifism? It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses. Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped. I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a constitutionally mandated service from a local government. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right. It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first place.. Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you are opposed to it. They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them. At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then... But we aren't there. We have to start somewhere. The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy. They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of that labor. I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license marriage. I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it. The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing. Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since that is a religious act? "Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority. That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter that contract. |
Hybrid Mode
