Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

If there aren't that many clerks, and in fact they refuse to do so, wouldn't that prove to be a great hindrance to gays getting their equal right of marriage? Doesn't that, in essence reflect on how STUPID this ruling is? Doesn't that show you what a major problem this is?

The ability of others to get married, regardless of their religious(or non-religious) beliefs doesn't interrupt the interpretation of the Church. Just like how there's many different forms of salad, but it's inevitably salad. Essentially, prior to the ruling the Church could hold the interpretation that= Man X Woman= a marriage. Whatever their beliefs were was secondary, to this basic standard.

Unless of course, the couple in question chose to go to a church of their choosing.(IE: A Jewish couple wanting to hold a Jewish ceremony, or same thing for Hindus). What this ruling IS, is to add a new dimension(philosophically and esoterically) that the Church simply has not agreed to, hell that people haven't agreed to as a whole.

I'll put it in political context: You're a Centrist, I'm a Fascist-Technocrat. I could shove a few of my own written pieces(and that of some others) in an attempt to make you convert to Fascism. You'll reject this of course, believing fully in your centrist viewpoints. The Court has now just mandated that a viewpoint "becomes the law of the land". And you seemingly think that what you wouldn't accept in my fascism, the Church is going to accept in the form of SSM?

Really? For as much fun as others make of the Christian Right(and those heterosexuals not at all too pleased with the outgoing "movement"), the fact is these numbers exist. And the Court's "order" is not going to be staying within the hearts and minds of the people. It's a glorified diktat led by Justice Kennedy.

It can only serve to divide this union, along esoterical and philosophical lines. This should have been legislated, it could only have been legislated. And what you and Mr. Kennedy will find is that you're not going to be able to hammer away at the civil confrontation of people over this, and many other issues.

I didn't want this before the Court, and I didn't want the Court to decide a winner or loser. The Court has failed on both accounts, and now the Courts/Government will have to deal with a great social calamity because Americans(such as yourself) are unable to appreciate the esoteric and spiritual values at play here. You think every case is the same(IE: Inter-racial), but you're about to see in the social sphere just how wrong you are with each and every legal challenge.

 

Sorry I dont do strawmans

 

wrong they can get someone else to issue the license...unless of course we can apply these rules to muslims in the workplace. Do you agree muslims should dress according to company rules?

 

what about a muslim woman who refuses to take off her burkha which violates her companys dress policy?

 

If this were the policy at the time she was hired, why was she hired at all? If she was hired knowing the policy, but later decided to violate it, I'd fire her. If it was NOT the policy at the time she was hired and the policy changed while she was wearing her burqa, I'd grandfather her particular case - she can continue to wear it as long as she works here, but nobody can adopt this attire subsequently.

 

Firstly...this is the county clerk and thus must they go outside of the county they live in.
Secondly..No, should the Muslim decide they cannot meet the dress code they are fired and replced by someone who will, that is how we work here...like it or not.

 

So, you guys would grandfather a muslim, but you would not grandfather a clerk who refused to give out marriage license if they were hired before the law change?

 

Are we all absolutely clear that the muslim woman must meet the dress code? You are positive?

 

I wonder what they would think if someone in the IRS said their religion did not support the tea party, so they denied all tea party requests for tax free status... I mean hey, I am sure republicans would say that is ok

clerks can deny fishing licenses to people that catch shellfish, deny business licenses to people that make cloths of mixed fabrics... I am sure you could find just about anything to justify anything in some religion

the government can't discriminate based on religion, so this clerk being part of government is breaking the law

.

 

I am sure some republicans somewhere has suggested tax cuts for the rich to resolve that issue too....

- - - Updated - - -

clubs and church's have always been exempt, always will be.....

 

And here is really where the debate falls off.

Because somehow, in the vastness of everything else, we've hit the key point here. There is a socially conservative religious section of the country that believe it is their religious right...to decide who has rights in this country.

Sorry, we have a constitution, not a bible, to protect the entire citizenry's rights.

 

It's not about their "right" to be married. In the first place, the "right" to be married was misconstrued.(As I pointed out a few posts above). The "rights" as it pertains to marriage are the Federal Benefits. Outside of the benefits conferred by government, marriage holds no natural advantage. No, not even "being together". Will a couple stop being together because their "marriage' isn't recognized? Cohabiting proves that to be false.

Marriage then holds a symbolic and spiritual value, in fact it holds this value above all else. That value, has been historically interpreted by the Church. That interpretation is now being invalidated by the Courts, since they can't seem to do the most obvious thing imaginable: Separate the Federal Benefits from Marriage.

That's IT, that's all you have to do. Recognize and respect the legitimate interpretations of the Church. Marriage, as a word and as a construct need not be lawfully binding. It's only that way now, due to a misconception and a fallacy of the merger of Church-State in this matter. Since it's a fallacy, its deconstruction is in order.

So let me rephrase your sentence, to make it clear to you: "There's a socially conservative religious section of the country that wishes to maintain the original interpretation of marriage." That STUPIDLY simple. And if this Court recognized that. and had taken any of the remedies to address it we would not have this problem today. But instead, a winner or loser was determined.

There need not have been a winner or a loser, but real equality. That would've taken some real guts though.

 

If they do not perform their duties yes, he will be out of office before you could get it done.

 

What did you lose?

The church can still marry hetosexual couples.

The church can still decide which couples they will conduct services for (they have always retained the right to not marry hetrosexual couples from other denominations).

The church maintains what it will say at weddings, what church officials will wear, how long the service is.

Nothing has changed for the church.

The only thing the church has lost is the ability to tell a group of American citizens, "No, you don't get to marry." Is that something you covet so much?

 

I can't believe you're missing the obvious. Gay people form and have families. Of course, that will never change regardless of any law. What has changed is that now these families have all the legal protections and responsibilities as any other family. That is of vast importance. And if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

BS- plenty of people who are non-religious are married in the legal sense. That has always been the case and has not changed with same sex couples being able to marry.

No, it's not. If that were the case, people like you would have been pushing for non-religious folks to call their marriages something else over 100 years ago. Also, the church is exempt from taxes for one reason- church and state are separate. If you would like to change that, let us all know and we will start taxing the church.

Of course a winner and loser was determined. Civil rights are quite simply not a compromise. You either have them or you don't.

Maybe I missed this, but what is your definition of "real equality"? Shall I guess? If I do guess, I would say that you mean that same sex couples should settle for something less than equal protection under the law. If you even try to tell me it's "civil unions", the religious right hated that idea too. We tried that, and they fought it just as hard. The bottom line is this- the religious right wanted us to have no legal recognition whatsoever. If you doubt me, let me know, and I'll give you plenty of proof. Or you could google it. But I doubt you'll bother.

Here's the bottom line- this issue is settled. It is over, and it is not going to change. You can (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan all you like, but the law is now- the law. I suggest you learn how to deal with it. But I am not so naive as to believe you will do that.

Furthermore- my entire family is Christian. My family, along with many other Christian families, approve of the SCOTUS decision. This is not a religious issue. It is an issue of bigotry attempting to be justified with religion. And that is truly ugly. Religion was never meant to be used in such a horrible way.

 

Huh? Do you even know what a strawman is?

 

Different things.

The company dress policy isn't the assignments of the company.

Regardless, I would support firing them as long as it was possible for the Muslim to find a job elsewhere easily--in fact, I would go so far as to say that the government should make this easier.

 

I cant believe people are still arguing about this crap...the clerk should do the job or get another one...
Simple as that ...people are allowing their support/dislike of SSM to cloud their views...
Public servants are employed to do a job....do it...end of story....

 

That's what I mean--a marriage license vending machine.

This is tongue-in-cheek, of course, and a parody of the automated cashiers at fast food restaurants that has been suggested after the strikes for higher pay.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall the day someone brought one in to be installed:

Douchie Lady: Oooooo, what's this?

Maintenance Guy: A new vending machine. We installing it over by your desk.

Douchie Lady: Nice! And what will be sold from it?

Maintenance Guy: Marriage licenses.

Douchie Lady: What?

Maintenance Guy: Marriage Licenses. It's your replacement since you started refusing to issue them yourself. What? Did you think issuing marriage licenses required some sort of special skills?

 

A company policy is not a law. And even in the case of a company, I was assuming we were dealing with a single individual. If a company decides to adopt a dress code which will affect nearly every employee, then there would be no grandfathering -- everyone would have to alter their wardrobe.

When it comes to the law, no private company has the option of continuing to break the law for as long as they see fit.

 

Then why is BHO still in office?If I lie to my customers I fired, and if I've cheated them, I also get sued for doing so. Using your rationale BHO should have been gone long ago, but it's a double standard when it comes to minorities and politicians. When we lie to the govenment, it's a felony. When the government lies to us, it's politics.

 

The First Amendment.

 

Sorry, this is simply not correct. But you are more than welcome to break any law in front of any cop, claim the First Amendment places you above the law, and then convince a judge.

Of course, you've made it clear you would consider every judge to be ruling unconstitutionally. Fortunately for the rest of us, you can bleat your idiocy from jail if you insist on it.

 

Sadly even I must concede she is wrong. What she should do is follow the state constitution and tells gays to apply for their marriage license at the USSC...

 

Actually being gay is harmful to the "group". It destroys the Immune System and gives diseases that would other wise not get the chance to mutate, more chances to mutate.

They are .5% of the population but account for 81% of new HIV/AID's cases.