SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[Retro Rob]

Don't a lot of marriage applications ask if you have been previously married?

I actually don't remember.

 

[JD50]

I completely agree. But that's not my contention. My contention is that she's not in violation of her beliefs by marrying divorced people.

As long as she isn't the actual minister in her church marrying divorced people who are divorced for anything OTHER than fornication, she's OK.



LOL, as far as I know, couples get their marriage license together. A gay or lesbian couple can't be that hard to see. She doesn't need to "get into other people's business" to know a gay couple when she merely see's them applying for a marriage license.

You're reaching. It certainly is getting into their business, no different than asking why they are getting married or why they were previously divorced. So you're saying that as long as she couldn't tell by looking at them that they are a gay couple then she would happily issue their marriage certificate?

 

[Retro Rob]

You're reaching. It certainly is getting into their business, no different than asking why they are getting married or why they were previously divorced.

How, exactly? She doesn't even need to say a word to them if they're gay, to know they're gay and getting married. I mean, she doesn't need to ask them anymore questions than a straight couple.

All she needs to ask ANY couple is if they are getting a marriage license. This is perhaps a standard question.

So you're saying that as long as she couldn't tell by looking at them that they are a gay couple then she would happily issue their marriage certificate?

That NOT what I said. What I said was that it doesn't require you to know their circumstances to know that a gay couple is getting a license.

 

[shira]

What I said was that it doesn't require you to know their circumstances to know that a gay couple is getting a license.

How can Davis know that a gay couple is getting a marriage license, without going to any extra effort?

 

[glenn1]

I have a question in line with this:

Why are people seemingly all of a sudden wanting the Gov't to "stay out of marriage" when gay marriage became legal?

Just wondering...

I can only speak for me and not "people," but I don't think you should be required to hand money over to the state just purchase a "license" to engage in an activity or basic act of commerce. Whether the license is for fishing, hunting, owning a dog, buying a firearm, or getting married, there's not much compelling state interest in forking over $XX to town hall just to do something you should enjoy a natural right to. That would apply whether you're speaking of same-sex marriages, plural, incestual, or any other kind; apart from ensuring your "spousal" rights are protected I don't give a damn who you marry, how many, or anything else. None of my business.

Now for activities which might cause risk to others I can see the state having an interest in ensuring basic certification of skill (driving, professional services rendered to others) with the costs basically being pass-through.

 

[Retro Rob]

How can Davis know that a gay couple is getting a marriage license, without going to any extra effort?

Two people walk to the counter and say "we want to get our marriage license today", and she either complies with it or not.

If its two men, they're gay, hands down..same thing with two women. She will not comply with no further inquiry.

If its a man and woman, she will comply with no further inquiry.

This is simple.

 

[JD50]

How, exactly? She doesn't even need to say a word to them if they're gay, to know they're gay and getting married. I mean, she doesn't need to ask them anymore questions than a straight couple.

All she needs to ask ANY couple is if they are getting a marriage license. This is perhaps a standard question.



That NOT what I said. What I said was that it doesn't require you to know their circumstances to know that a gay couple is getting a license.

She is getting into their business by denying their marriage license when it is perfectly legal for them to get married. She is going through tons of extra effort to continue doing this, including spending multiple days in jail, yet she can't be bothered to take a few minutes and check the divorce records of a straight couple.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The judge spoke on Friday he essentially said the goal was county compliance which has been met since licenses are being issued.
He gave another warning about "Tom Foolery". Should be interesting where this heads.

 

[Retro Rob]

She is getting into their business by denying their marriage license when it is perfectly legal for them to get married.

Now you're talking about something different. That's NOT what I was saying initially, however.

I, again and again, am not in support of her choice in breaking the law.

She is going through tons of extra effort to continue doing this, including spending multiple days in jail, yet she can't be bothered to take a few minutes and check the divorce records of a straight couple.

She doesn't need to check the divorce records of people as divorce in and of itself, is NOT unbiblical, and divorced people are free to remarry if they so choose.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Huckabee is speaking now. He is a total clown. I heard"the founding fathers set up courts to review laws and give recommendations about interpreting laws to the legislative branch". Obviously this judge over stepped his bounds.



What a clown.

He just offered to sit in jail in her place, pretty convenient since she was released.

Ugh now she is on stage to survivor eye of the tiger. I'd bet he gets a copyright warning tonight.
Her Husband(?) is in Hillbilly overalls.

 

[shira]

Two people walk to the counter and say "we want to get our marriage license today", and she either complies with it or not.

If its two men, they're gay, hands down..same thing with two women. She will not comply with no further inquiry.

If its a man and woman, she will comply with no further inquiry.

This is simple.

Not so simple.

In most cases, you're right. But it's far from a slam dunk. I often have difficulty telling the difference between men and women, and so would she.

And then the question becomes: What would she do if she wasn't sure? Would she take it upon herself to pry into the private lives of would-be married couples? And if so, she'd be setting a precedent that could be used to pry into all sorts of private information. For example, is this a second marriage, was there a previous divorce (and if so, what was the reason)?

 

[glenn1]

She is getting into their business by denying their marriage license when it is perfectly legal for them to get married. She is going through tons of extra effort to continue doing this, including spending multiple days in jail, yet she can't be bothered to take a few minutes and check the divorce records of a straight couple.

She's an idiot, and I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread defend her. Ditto Huckabee.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not so simple.

In most cases, you're right. But it's far from a slam dunk. I often have difficulty telling the difference between men and women, and so would she.

This is nonsense, and a red-herring. You're grasping at straws.

And then the question becomes: What would she do if she wasn't sure? Would she take it upon herself to pry into the private lives of would-be married couples?

Nonsense. You're reaching.

And if so, she'd be setting a precedent that could be used to pry into all sorts of private information. For example, is this a second marriage, was there a previous divorce (and if so, what was the reason)?

You guys are trying to draw an equivalence where there is none. Not being able to initially tell the difference between a man or woman is NOT the same as asking someone if they cheated on their ex-spouse.

 

[shira]

She's an idiot, and I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread defend her. Ditto Huckabee.

I think the much greater concern is that it appears that there's a pretty big group of Americans who think that fundie Christians ought to be able to enforce their religious views in their official government capacities. I stress "fundie Christians" because I very much doubt these same people would support such behavior by other religious groups.

 

[shira]

This is nonsense, and a red-herring. You're grasping at straws.



Nonsense. You're reaching.



You guys are trying to draw an equivalence where there is none. Not being able to initially tell the difference between a man or woman is NOT the same as asking someone if they cheated on their ex-spouse.

I agree that it's a stretch. However, in a small jurisdiction like Rowan Country, Davis probably knows the private details of the lives of many of its residents. So although it may not generally be true that Davis would "dig for details," if she happened to know that - for example - an applicant for a marriage license was recently divorced by his ex-wife for adultery, would Davis enforce the Biblical censure of adulterers?

 

[glenn1]

I think the much greater concern is that it appears that there's a pretty big group of Americans who think that fundie Christians ought to be able to enforce their religious views in their official government capacities. I stress "fundie Christians" because I very much doubt these same people would support such behavior by other religious groups.

I doubt that group is all that big, they're just led by loudmouths who hope this woman will somehow become the anti-Rosa Parks of this generation. Which is hateful enough on its face, but not really reason for concern as they're not going to get traction. Most people including the older and less tolerant Americans aren't vitriolic enough in their homophobia to make their dying stand on this issue. If anything this woman is showing how ridiculous it is to continue the fight at this point.

 

[glenn1]

When even theWestboro Baptist Church disagrees with you, I think we can safely say Kim Davis is damn near universally thought of as an idiot. Except by other idiots like Huckabee.

 

[Retro Rob]

if she happened to know that - for example - an applicant for a marriage license was recently divorced by his ex-wife for adultery, would Davis enforce the Biblical censure of adulterers?

THIS is a very GOOD question, but you have it backwards. Would she issue a license to someone whom she KNEW was divorced for something OTHER than adultery?

THAT would make her a hypocrite. I suspect she doesn't give a damn and would issue a license to someone who divorced because his wife burns his food at home, or something trivial like that.

Most Christians I come across are crusaders against gay marriage, but they live unmarried with their boy/girlfriends, get drunk, and think all can be forgiven RIGHT before dying by saying "im sorry".

Born-agains are the foremost offenders.

 

[JD50]

Now you're talking about something different. That's NOT what I was saying initially, however.

I, again and again, am not in support of her choice in breaking the law.



She doesn't need to check the divorce records of people as divorce in and of itself, is NOT unbiblical, and divorced people are free to remarry if they so choose.

Why do you think it is that she does not check their divorce records?

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you think it is that she does not check their divorce records?

Who knows?

Divorce is allowed in the Bible -- perhaps that's why.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Who knows?

Divorce is allowed in the Bible -- perhaps that's why.

Aren't there a lot of things the bible allows that would be shunned by some groups? Gotta love this a la carte doctrine following.

 

[Ns1]

Who knows?

Divorce is allowed in the Bible -- perhaps that's why.

I'm intrigued by these thoughts and wish to know more. Perhaps you can also explain the frequent references to slavery in the bible; I would like to know how I can use religious arguments to enslave my fellow man for the glory of god.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Most christian's are fine people if they don't take every word of the Bible literally. Even the ones who do actually pick & choose. They tend to pick the most narrow-minded bits of the Old Testament while ignoring most of what Jesus said.

Even if she is saved or reborn, what's Christian about judging someone because they sin differently than you? Why don't those gays being married have the potential to be "saved" or "reborn" like her, and have the slate wiped clean, at some future date? Are those that signed her prior marriage licenses in danger of their mortal souls by contributing to her cheating, adulterous unChristian marriages.

Do some christian's ever wonder why it is that when you feel your religious freedom is being infringed, it is when you are trying to do something shitty? Have you ever noticed that your religious freedom is never compromised when you are treating other humans with love and respect? If your religion requires you to be an asshole, even Jesus would tell you, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Perknose]

Who knows?

Divorce is allowed in the Bible -- perhaps that's why.

Your smug answer seems intentionally vague and overreaching. That's not very upstanding of you!

Some Christians interpret a couple of passages in the Bible as allowing divorce, but only for very narrow reasons. According to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

Except for these reasons, there is no justification given in the Bible for divorce. No grounds exist for divorce on the basis of incompatibility, lack of love, or differing career goals. Frankly, it seems impossible that two born-again Christians who are dedicated to serving Jesus Christ can find any grounds for divorce.

Obviously, when a person who does not have biblical grounds for divorce remarries, he or she is technically committing adultery.

Need more proof that your blanket statement is BS?

Matthew 5:31-32

31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Mark 10:2-12

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18

18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:39

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3

2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Deuteronomy 22:19

19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

Malachi 2:16

16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

1 Corinthians 7:11-13

11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

I thought you were a committed Christian and a true knower of the word of God, as written in the Bible. Turns out, you're just another partisan BS artist, willing to post knowing lies of omission. Shame on you.

 

[JD50]

Who knows?

Divorce is allowed in the Bible -- perhaps that's why.

Lol, ok.