States/Marriage License [Archive] - Debate Policy

indago

11-25-2014, 07:09 AM

fj1200

11-25-2014, 07:42 AM

Ian Huyett wrote for The Libertarian Republic 27 January 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that could make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz3K0FxVVq8)

If the federal government is going to determine what is — or is not — a marriage, then let them issue the marriage licenses, and divorce decrees, and family law administrators, child support decrees, visitations, etc.

A. I've been saying make it private for some time now, but
B. The Federal government doesn't determine what is - or is not - marriage, it only decides Equal Protection.

indago

11-26-2014, 11:34 AM

A. I've been saying make it private for some time now, but
B. The Federal government doesn't determine what is - or is not - marriage, it only decides Equal Protection.

"Equal Protection" of what?

revelarts

11-26-2014, 12:11 PM

A. I've been saying make it private for some time now, but
B. The Federal government doesn't determine what is - or is not - marriage, it only decides Equal Protection.
Having the the fed decide equal protection is just a backhanded way to get them what they want. everyone acknowledging the legality of their NEW marriage. your position is not intellectually honest.

I have no problem with the STATES and FEDS out of marriage law as long as all private entities/biz/clubs/org/groups also can decide whether they legally ACKNOWLEDGE someone's so-called marriage.

tailfins

11-26-2014, 12:23 PM

Having the the fed decide equal protection is just a backhanded way to get them what they want. everyone acknowledging the legality of their NEW marriage. your position is not intellectually honest.

I have no problem with the STATES and FEDS out of marriage law as long as all private entities/biz/clubs/org/groups also can decide whether they legally ACKNOWLEDGE someone's so-called marriage.

This has reared it's ugly head in Massachusetts where some social workers have an agenda of removing kids from traditional intact homes and placing them with gays and lesbians. That should fit withing anyone's definition of totalitarianism.

fj1200

11-26-2014, 12:44 PM

"Equal Protection" of what?

Umm, the laws.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Having the the fed decide equal protection is just a backhanded way to get them what they want. everyone acknowledging the legality of their NEW marriage. your position is not intellectually honest.

I have no problem with the STATES and FEDS out of marriage law as long as all private entities/biz/clubs/org/groups also can decide whether they legally ACKNOWLEDGE someone's so-called marriage.

I daresay my position is the only one that is intellectually honest. And I agree with your second part but the States and Feds will not be getting out of it anytime soon IMO. Both sides are invested in a State definition of marriage; good luck to Oklahoma.

indago

11-26-2014, 06:04 PM

Umm, the laws.

The law in Michigan is:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

fj1200

11-27-2014, 10:12 AM

The law in Michigan is:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

OK. And probably unconstitutional as it doesn't offer equal protection.

indago

11-27-2014, 10:25 AM

OK. And probably unconstitutional as it doesn't offer equal protection.

It is the law in Michigan, and it is in the Michigan Constitution, so it is constitutional.

fj1200

11-27-2014, 10:29 AM

It is the law in Michigan, and it is in the Michigan Constitution, so it is constitutional.

No, states can't violate the Federal Constitution.

gabosaurus

11-27-2014, 11:00 AM

This has reared it's ugly head in Massachusetts where some social workers have an agenda of removing kids from traditional intact homes and placing them with gays and lesbians. That should fit withing anyone's definition of totalitarianism.

What if the gay and lesbian homes are more stable and child appropriate than the "traditional intact" homes?
Having two parents is having two parents. If you have parent(s) who either can't or refuse to care for their children, or perhaps are alcoholic or drug addicted, you terminate their rights for the good of the child.

revelarts

11-27-2014, 11:08 AM

No, states can't violate the Federal Constitution.

the federal Constitution says NOTHING about marriage Jim. not by amendment or statute
and if it's not a granted power they have no jurisdiction in State Law in those areas.

But that's another problem isn't it.

fj1200

11-27-2014, 12:18 PM

the federal Constitution says NOTHING about marriage Jim. not by amendment or statute
and if it's not a granted power they have no jurisdiction in State Law in those areas.

But that's another problem isn't it.

Who you callin' Jim. :slap: Them's fightin' words. :scared:

You're right, the Constitution says nothing about marriage but apparently the Federal Code mentions it 1100+ times. Nevertheless "marriage" grants benefits all over the place so if those benefits are going to be granted based on privilege then that needs to be Constitutional at all levels. IIRC equal protection was the basis for parts of DOMA being overturned... correctly IMO.

But I agree with your last, the problem has grown far beyond where it should be.

tailfins

11-27-2014, 12:28 PM

What if the gay and lesbian homes are more stable and child appropriate than the "traditional intact" homes?
Having two parents is having two parents. If you have parent(s) who either can't or refuse to care for their children, or perhaps are alcoholic or drug addicted, you terminate their rights for the good of the child.

"More stable and appropriate" is a totalitarian standard, which in legalese is "reason to believe". The standard for a free society should be AT LEAST "preponderance of evidence" if not "clear and convincing". The notion in your first sentence approves of taking children from fit parents. Preponderance of evidence means more likely than not, credible and reason to believe is even weaker than that.

Here are the standards by state:

http://www.kansas.com/news/special-reports/in-need-of-care/article1281829.html

Clear and convincing: Kansas
Credible: District of Columbia, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma
Probable cause: Arizona
Preponderance: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania*, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Reasonable: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont
Source: “Child Maltreatment 2012,” a study by the Administration for Children and Families, an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
*Pennsylvania changed its standard after the study was published.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/special-reports/in-need-of-care/article1281829.html#storylink=cpy

indago

11-27-2014, 03:28 PM

Who you callin' Jim. :slap: Them's fightin' words. :scared:

You're right, the Constitution says nothing about marriage but apparently the Federal Code mentions it 1100+ times. Nevertheless "marriage" grants benefits all over the place so if those benefits are going to be granted based on privilege then that needs to be Constitutional at all levels. IIRC equal protection was the basis for parts of DOMA being overturned... correctly IMO.

But I agree with your last, the problem has grown far beyond where it should be.

If the law had indicated that anybody could be married to anybody, or anything, and lesbian lovers were denied license to marry, then they would have actually been denied "equal protection of the laws". But, that not being the case, the lesbian lovers were not denied "equal protection".

fj1200

11-27-2014, 03:36 PM

If the law had indicated that anybody could be married to anybody, or anything, and lesbian lovers were denied license to marry, then they would have actually been denied "equal protection of the laws". But, that not being the case, the lesbian lovers were not denied "equal protection".

No. You are completely incorrect but in the interest of possibly learning something new please tell me how those lesbians can avail themselves of the Federal benefits of marriage.

indago

11-28-2014, 08:41 AM

please tell me how those lesbians can avail themselves of the Federal benefits of marriage.

Well, the truth will out! And didn't I just know, somehow, that this was the agenda of the federal government: to force the States to recognize homosexual marriage so that homosexual couples could "avail themselves of the Federal benefits of marriage".

It's all about the benefits, isn't it!

fj1200

11-28-2014, 09:25 AM

Well, the truth will out! And didn't I just know, somehow, that this was the agenda of the federal government: to force the States to recognize homosexual marriage so that homosexual couples could "avail themselves of the Federal benefits of marriage".

It's all about the benefits, isn't it!

Actually the agenda of the Federal government is to enforce equal protection. But since you can't answer the question as I asked why don't you explain why you should receive benefits that not all are entitled to. Oh, and benefits don't automatically mean money.

indago

08-13-2015, 06:51 AM

From The Associated Press 12 August 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A county clerk in Kentucky will not immediately issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, her lawyer says, despite a federal judge ordering her to do so Wednesday in a case that seeks to reconcile the country's new marriage law and its protections of religious freedom.

...April Miller, one of the plaintiffs, has been engaged to Karen Roberts for 11 years. They were the first couple to be denied in Rowan County and said they plan to return to the clerk's office soon to get a license. "We have our rings; we have an officiant. We have talked about food and cake and music and having a big party. We're excited about it." she said. "We need a license, and we need a date."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-12-19-39-16)

If marriage is a right, then why do they demean this right by asking for permission from the State, or County?

Drummond

08-13-2015, 07:20 AM

If marriage is a right, then why do they demean this right by asking for permission from the State, or County?

Marriage is indeed a 'right', within the proper context for marriage !

Removing that context, corrupts the right associated with it .. ?

fj1200

08-13-2015, 07:33 AM

:rolleyes:

More non-argument arguments.

Drummond

08-13-2015, 07:50 AM

:rolleyes:

More non-argument arguments.

How does editing others' posts compare ? Or launching into unbidden insult-fests ?

Don't waste my time, FJ; you have no moral 'high ground' to defend. Try, instead, sticking to the subject of the thread.

jimnyc

08-13-2015, 07:59 AM

:rolleyes:

More non-argument arguments.

Is this an argument against non-arguments? :dunno:

indago

08-13-2015, 08:51 AM

Marriage is indeed a 'right', within the proper context for marriage !

Removing that context, corrupts the right associated with it .. ?

Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'", why don't the participants just exercise that right and go ahead and get married, and then file an affidavit, or certification, with the State, or County, declaring that they are married.

fj1200

08-13-2015, 09:59 AM

Don't waste my time, FJ; :blah:

Try keeping it on topic.

Is this an argument against non-arguments? :dunno:

Indeed it is.

Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'"...

Do you suggest "straight" marriages do the same? Also, do you think the county employee is within their rights to ignore their job responsibilities?

indago

08-15-2015, 06:30 AM

Do you suggest "straight" marriages do the same? Also, do you think the county employee is within their rights to ignore their job responsibilities?

What is it about the query that you do not comprehend?

fj1200

08-15-2015, 02:04 PM

What is it about the query that you do not comprehend?

I comprehend it and from where it comes from just fine. I was inquiring further given your faulty premise. Did you demean your right?

indago

08-15-2015, 02:51 PM

I comprehend it and from where it comes from just fine. I was inquiring further given your faulty premise. Did you demean your right?

So, what was faulty?

gabosaurus

08-15-2015, 03:31 PM

[QUOTE=indago;716011]Ian Huyett wrote for The Libertarian Republic 27 January 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that could make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a ton of people who are not religious and do not belong to churches. This is why you have civil ceremonies.
Mr. Turner should mind his own business and quit trying to run for higher office.

fj1200

08-16-2015, 01:58 PM

So, what was faulty?

That you suggest others act in a manner that you presumably won't act.

fj1200

08-16-2015, 02:04 PM

There are a ton of people who are not religious and do not belong to churches. This is why you have civil ceremonies.
Mr. Turner should mind his own business and quit trying to run for higher office.

Good on him. That's classic small-government legislation.

indago

08-16-2015, 02:59 PM

That you suggest others act in a manner that you presumably won't act.

Point out in the query where this has occurred.

indago

08-17-2015, 06:53 AM

From The Associated Press 14 August 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ermold broke down and cried in the county's judge-executive's office after he was denied a license to marry David Moore, his partner of 17 years.

"I will say that people are cruel, they are cruel, these people are cruel," Ermold said. "This is how gay people are treated in this country. This is what it's like. This is how it feels."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-14-04-38-53)

Well, he can cry all he wants to; if he asked the State, or County, for permission, and there were restrictions, then he wasn't exercising a right. He was seeking a privilege.

Already noted:
And if it's a right, then why why don't the participants just exercise that right and go ahead and get married, and then file an affidavit, or certification, with the State, or County, declaring that they are married.

fj1200

08-17-2015, 09:07 AM

Point out in the query where this has occurred.

That's why I ask the question. I'll even do it again.

He was seeking a privilege.

Do you seek the same privilege? Along a similar vein, do you seek permission via a permit to exercise your 2A rights?

indago

08-17-2015, 02:29 PM

The query was: "Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'", why don't the participants just exercise that right and go ahead and get married, and then file an affidavit, or certification, with the State, or County, declaring that they are married."

To which you responded: " Originally Posted by indago
Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'"...

Do you suggest "straight" marriages do the same? Also, do you think the county employee is within their rights to ignore their job responsibilities?"

You stated, then, that the premise was faulty, and "That you suggest others act in a manner that you presumably won't act." I, then, queried: "Point out in the query where this has occurred."

I don't see, in your response, where it is within the query posted. You are obviously hallucinating.

fj1200

08-17-2015, 02:52 PM

You are obviously hallucinating.

I wish I was hallucinating. A drug-induced haze is required to find your answer. I'm only asking if you do the same as you expect of others.

indago

08-17-2015, 05:45 PM

I wish I was hallucinating. A drug-induced haze is required to find your answer. I'm only asking if you do the same as you expect of others.

The query isn't about me. It is, again: "Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'", why don't the participants just exercise that right and go ahead and get married, and then file an affidavit, or certification, with the State, or County, declaring that they are married."

To which you declared that the premise was faulty. Point out the faulty premise in the query!

DragonStryk72

08-17-2015, 06:41 PM

Here's the problem with the whole "Leave it to the churches": That directly violates state/church separations, oddly enough. This means atheists and agnostics are no longer capable of being married, seeing as they have no church, and thus, are being walled off from their right to marry but the cut off of State marriage.

Now, State marriage has nothing, nothing, to do with religious marriage, so let's start there. The reason why the State has a marriage license process is to be certain that you are claiming the correct tax deductions each year, both for the State and Federal taxes, census, and to document those unions for the purposes of S.O. rights, such as spousal right to be in the room with their loved one at the hospital, and such. That's it.

So how does this pertain to equal protection? Well, we've got two couples: A heterosexual couple (HC), and a lesbian couple (LC). Now, both are making about the same income over all, but differences occur. Since HC is an officially licensed married couple, they are able to claim married exemptions on their taxes, get higher credit scores, and better interest rates on their home that they purchased together. The husband can make medical decisions for his wife when she is incapacitated easily, simply by point of that marriage license.

LC, however, despite having been together monogamously for just as long, and being a couple for the rest of their lives, are denied all of that, period. Civil Unions do not provide spousal rights, so there's no hope there, either.

That is inequal, quite clearly, and it, again, has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of legal rights, not privileges.

jimnyc

08-17-2015, 06:53 PM

I wish I was hallucinating. A drug-induced haze is required to find your answer.

I once found the meaning of life, while in a drug induced haze. :420:

indago

08-17-2015, 09:34 PM

gabosaurus

08-17-2015, 09:44 PM

I once found the meaning of life, while in a drug induced haze. :420:

Have someone let us know when you find your way out of it. :panicsmiley:

fj1200

08-18-2015, 08:46 AM

The query isn't about me. It is, again: "Then, if "Marriage is indeed a 'right'", why don't the participants just exercise that right and go ahead and get married, and then file an affidavit, or certification, with the State, or County, declaring that they are married."

To which you declared that the premise was faulty. Point out the faulty premise in the query!

Done and done. Is that how you exercised your marriage "right"?

indago

08-18-2015, 09:22 AM

Done and done. Is that how you exercised your marriage "right"?

Yes, run away, again! I have already stated that the query wasn't about me, and you still didn't "Point out the faulty premise in the query".

fj1200

08-18-2015, 09:28 AM

Yes, run away, again! I have already stated that the query wasn't about me, and you still didn't "Point out the faulty premise in the query".

Who's running away? You won't do the same that you insist others do.

indago

08-18-2015, 12:42 PM

Who's running away? You won't do the same that you insist others do.

Keep running...

fj1200

08-18-2015, 01:16 PM

Keep running...

Who's running? You won't answer a question.

indago

08-18-2015, 06:31 PM

Who's running? You won't answer a question.

^^^^Hiding behind a STRAWMAN^^^^

fj1200

08-19-2015, 07:41 AM

^^^^Hiding behind a STRAWMAN^^^^

:laugh: Irony. Let me know when you can answer a question.

indago

08-19-2015, 09:24 AM

:laugh: Irony. Let me know when you can answer a question.

^^^^^^^^^^more strawman^^^^^^^^^^

indago

11-21-2015, 11:20 AM

Journalist Adam Beam wrote for The Associated Press 20 November 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union says a Kentucky county clerk's office should reissue altered marriage licenses even though the governor has promised to recognize them as valid. ...The attorneys called the altered marriage licenses "a stamp of animus against gay people"...

...state law requires county clerks' names to appear on the licenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-20-17-29-16)

Gunny

11-21-2015, 11:58 AM

Ian Huyett wrote for The Libertarian Republic 27 January 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that could make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz3K0FxVVq8)

If the federal government is going to determine what is — or is not — a marriage, then let them issue the marriage licenses, and divorce decrees, and family law administrators, child support decrees, visitations, etc.

It IS a private institution. But you can show me WHERE in the Bill of Rights you have the Right to marriage. And straight up, not pulling something out your butt using some Amendment that has NOTHING to do with it. Here's mine:

The 1st Amendment -- separation of church and state.

The 10th Amendment: ANY powers not specifically delegated the US government falls to the states.

fj1200

11-21-2015, 12:12 PM

...state law requires county clerks' names to appear on the licenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rubber stamper should do her job or resign.

Gunny

11-21-2015, 12:25 PM

The rubber stamper should do her job or resign.

More difficult argument. I know what it's like to be a government employee and they change the rules on you and you're kind of stuck after you have years working toward a pension and allegedly "doing the right thing". From the time I joined the Marines until I retired I got screwed out of more crap.

Story time: Was this Marine Sergeant who refused to take the anthrax shots. Each time he refused he lost a stripe. When he made it to E-3, he took the shot. I was like, Why? "I have a family to think of". Should have though of THAT shit before you gave away two stripes and a right for that family to live housing, huh?

Response: We don't know what's in those shots.

Yeah, ranchers have been using them in Texas since the early 70s. Besides, when you line up in your issue whit skivvies and they shoot you full of 8 shots in each arm from both sides they could put anything in you they want. Felt like tossing him off the fantail for being a dumbass.

Point is, this woman's standing for what she believes and the Supreme COurt is out of line ruling on something not within their purview. She's not going to win. I think we all know that.

fj1200

11-21-2015, 12:30 PM

More difficult argument. I know what it's like to be a government employee and they change the rules on you and you're kind of stuck after you have years working toward a pension and allegedly "doing the right thing". From the time I joined the Marines until I retired I got screwed out of more crap.

Story time: Was this Marine Sergeant who refused to take the anthrax shots. Each time he refused he lost a stripe. When he made it to E-3, he took the shot. I was like, Why? "I have a family to think of". Should have though of THAT shit before you gave away two stripes and a right for that family to live housing, huh?

Response: We don't know what's in those shots.

Yeah, ranchers have been using them in Texas since the early 70s. Besides, when you line up in your issue whit skivvies and they shoot you full of 8 shots in each arm from both sides they could put anything in you they want. Felt like tossing him off the fantail for being a dumbass.

Point is, this woman's standing for what she believes and the Supreme COurt is out of line ruling on something not within their purview. She's not going to win. I think we all know that.

No, she isn't going to win but somehow has overly high views of what her actual function is and her function hasn't changed.

Gunny

11-21-2015, 12:39 PM

No, she isn't going to win but somehow has overly high views of what her actual function is and her function hasn't changed.

I guess I didn't actually make my point. Doesn't matter what your function is. That Marine was a Postal Clerk. If she caves, I'll have the same respect for her I had for him. If you're going to take a stand, take it. She's created a quandary for herself. If she caves, we'll at least not have to hear about Paris anymore because the media will be on her like white on rice. Only thing she can cave for is a government pension.

fj1200

11-21-2015, 12:41 PM

I guess I didn't actually make my point.

You very much did and I agree. She should resign.

Gunny

11-21-2015, 12:50 PM

You very much did and I agree. She should resign.

I'm interested only in seeing what she does. If she's so strong in her convictions, she won't sell out God for a paycheck.

But she needs to make a choice. The Supreme Court isn't going to be overturned regardless the unconstitutionality of its decision.

indago

11-21-2015, 03:50 PM

No, she isn't going to win but somehow has overly high views of what her actual function is and her function hasn't changed.

Yes it has!

Gunny

11-21-2015, 03:53 PM

Yes it has!

I agree. It HAS changed. If one wants to claim it is not a changed legal function then HOW exactly did the Supreme Court get involved?

fj1200

11-22-2015, 03:36 PM

Yes it has!

She was a rubber stamper before and she's a rubber stamper now. Her perception of her function has changed.

fj1200

11-22-2015, 03:38 PM

I agree. It HAS changed. If one wants to claim it is not a changed legal function then HOW exactly did the Supreme Court get involved?

The only thing that changed after SCOTUS ruled was who was allowed to fill out the form.

Gunny

11-22-2015, 05:00 PM

The only thing that changed after SCOTUS ruled was who was allowed to fill out the form.

They had no Right under the Constitution to even rule at all.

indago

11-22-2015, 05:18 PM

She was a rubber stamper before and she's a rubber stamper now. Her perception of her function has changed.

Then you are say she was granted indiscriminate rubber stamping...

Gunny

11-22-2015, 05:42 PM

Then you are say she was granted indiscriminate rubber stamping...

The REAL issues are:

She didn't think out her strategy and tactics. She's a clerk. She's going to lose. I can relate. You know how many pointless, stupid orders I've carried out? But O know when and where to fight and what's worth fighting over.

The State should be the one saying screw you to the Federal government. They'll defy the Federal government on "sanctuary cities" which IS in the Federal Government's purview; yet, cave to something that is NOT in their purview? What kind of crap is THAT?

fj1200

11-23-2015, 09:18 AM

They had no Right under the Constitution to even rule at all.

Of course they did, once the Federal government chose to grant privileges of course. The Feds should have stayed out of it.

indago

02-10-2016, 10:36 AM

From The Associated Press 9 February 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge David Bunning denied the American Civil Liberties Union's request to order Davis to reissue licenses she had altered to remove her name and title or face the possibility of further punishment. He found that Davis has allowed her deputies to issue licenses to anyone eligible since September and that the altered licenses are likely valid under Kentucky law. ...ACLU Staff Attorney Ria Tabacco Mar issued a statement after the ruling saying she was "heartened" that Judge Bunning believes the altered licenses will likely be honored. But she said the question will have to be settled conclusively by Kentucky state courts.

Davis' lawyer, Mat Staver, wrote that the judge's ruling rebuffed what he described as a personal vendetta against Davis.

"From the beginning, we have said the ACLU is not interested in marriage licenses. They want Kim Davis' scalp," Staver wrote. "They want to force her to violate her conscience. I am glad the court rejected this bully tactic."
----------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-09-19-03-08)

indago

04-02-2016, 09:07 AM

Journalist Bruce Schreiner wrote for The Associated Press 1 April 2016:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky lawmakers gave their final blessing Friday to legislation creating one marriage license form for gay and straight couples in an effort to defuse the state's controversy over gay marriage. ...Under the final version, a marriage license applicant would have the option of checking "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. The form would not have the clerk's name on it. ...In February, the Senate passed a starkly different version that proposed separate marriage license forms for gay and straight couples. Under that version, one form would have listed a bride and groom and the other would have listed "first party and second party." The House scrapped that approach in favor of the single-form approach, and the Senate agreed to it with little discussion on Friday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_XGR_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-01-17-24-29)

Gunny

04-02-2016, 01:20 PM

Ian Huyett wrote for The Libertarian Republic 27 January 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that could make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-divorce-marriage-government-video/#axzz3K0FxVVq8)

If the federal government is going to determine what is — or is not — a marriage, then let them issue the marriage licenses, and divorce decrees, and family law administrators, child support decrees, visitations, etc.

Shouldn't it be? The fact is, the state wants that license to get its fees, put you in a category and tax you. It's to the states' advantage to let churches perform the ceremonies. The church does it as a custom/rite. The state defining what is and is not marriage which is a religious custom is an intrusion on the 1st Amendment.

gabosaurus

04-02-2016, 07:45 PM

Shouldn't it be? The fact is, the state wants that license to get its fees, put you in a category and tax you. It's to the states' advantage to let churches perform the ceremonies. The church does it as a custom/rite. The state defining what is and is not marriage which is a religious custom is an intrusion on the 1st Amendment.

The trouble with this argument is that many people have no religious beliefs and have no desire to be married in a church. This is why you need secular ceremonies.
My sister and her husband were married by a justice of the peace in a public hall. They wrote the entire ceremony, which had no religious references.

fj1200

04-04-2016, 10:27 AM

Gunny

04-04-2016, 12:59 PM

The trouble with this argument is that many people have no religious beliefs and have no desire to be married in a church. This is why you need secular ceremonies.
My sister and her husband were married by a justice of the peace in a public hall. They wrote the entire ceremony, which had no religious references.

Fine go to the Justice of the Peace, get your license and get married. The problem with YOUR argument is that we are discussing the intrusion of the government into religion. Have a secular ceremony. That in no way intrudes on my religious beliefs and I could give a crap what the government thinks anyway.

This argument has been coming for years. Gays got their way and still want more. No slippery slope, right? :rolleyes: Newsflash: my church doesn't want you. Just like the cake maker who should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Or anyone else that just doesn't want your gay ass around. Seems to me the only people required to follow rules are middle and lower class white heterosexuals. We can't scream discrimination for every perceived slight.

Abbey Marie

04-04-2016, 02:33 PM

Fine go to the Justice of the Peace, get your license and get married. The problem with YOUR argument is that we are discussing the intrusion of the government into religion. Have a secular ceremony. That in no way intrudes on my religious beliefs and I could give a crap what the government thinks anyway.

This argument has been coming for years. Gays got their way and still want more. No slippery slope, right? :rolleyes: Newsflash: my church doesn't want you. Just like the cake maker who should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Or anyone else that just doesn't want your gay ass around. Seems to me the only people required to follow rules are middle and lower class white heterosexuals. We can't scream discrimination for every perceived slight.

I'll add "males" to that list to be precise. White females still get to claim all sorts of stuff.

Gunny

04-04-2016, 03:27 PM

I'll add "males" to that list to be precise. White females still get to claim all sorts of stuff.

And I don't get crap for being bald. What kind of selective discrimination do we have going on here, anyway?:laugh:

indago

05-13-2016, 09:46 AM

From The Associated Press 12 May 2016:
------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of embattled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore say they plan to rally to support both states' rights and "traditional" marriage. Moore supporters Thursday gathered in front of the Supreme Court as a "call to action." ...Dean Young, a former congressional candidate and Moore aide, says Montgomery is "ground zero in the cultural war." Young says Moore is simply standing up for the majority of Alabamians.
------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALABAMA_CHIEF_JUSTICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-12-19-18-10)

A "wake-up call" for those who still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. More should rally to this cause.