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.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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?

I agree. The word 'marriage' should never have been associated with the word
'license'. 'Partnership' or 'Union' or any other word showing the joining of two
people in such a way as to get government, etc, benefits should have been used.

'Conjugal License' sounds good to me, or maybe 'connubial license'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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.

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.

On 9/3/15 12:43 PM, wrote:
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.


I agree that civil union, if it universally grants all the legal rights
and privileges of marriage, is fine.

I'm not a fan of nativity scenes on public properly, but I'm not
offended enough to try to do anything about it. I did help get a public
polling place out of an overly aggressive fundie church and into a
public school.

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:
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.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:


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.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.


I heard that. Political correctness run amok.

I am curious exactly what law the original court cited when they made
ther order she ignored. This may be tossed and the lower court
reversed.
Rand Paul says he knows of no Kentucky law that requires local
officials to issue marriage licenses and since she stopped ALL of
them, she is not discriminating against any single protected group.

On 9/3/15 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:


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.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.


I heard that. Political correctness run amok.

I am curious exactly what law the original court cited when they made
ther order she ignored. This may be tossed and the lower court
reversed.
Rand Paul says he knows of no Kentucky law that requires local
officials to issue marriage licenses and since she stopped ALL of
them, she is not discriminating against any single protected group.



Uh-huh.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.

I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. I just looked and Florida statute
says " The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall
issue such license, upon application for the license, if there appears
to be no impediment to the marriage."

If they have that language, she may be in trouble. ("Shall" in the law
means "must do")

Kentucky is a strange place so he might be right tho. If they use the
word ""may", it is not mandatory.

In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@
4ax.com, says...

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.

I am not sure if Rand Paul is right.

He's a ****ing eye doctor.