Dems admit they redefined marriage

[novasteve]

Dems declare war on words husband wife Washington Examiner

And want more changes

 

[Iceweasel]

They outlawed the words for insurance companies here before we had gay marriage. I got a letter from my company and they said they can no longer use the words husband, wife, marriage or divorce. Domestic partner was the replacement.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - you go gurl!...

A Lone Kentucky Clerk vs. Supreme Court
August 30, 2015 - Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who objects to gay marriage for religious reasons, asked the nation’s highest court to grant her “asylum for her conscience.”

Two months after it legalized gay marriage nationwide, the US Supreme Court is being asked by a Kentucky county clerk for permission to keep denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who objects to gay marriage for religious reasons, asked the nation’s highest court Friday to grant her “asylum for her conscience.” The Supreme Court ruled in June that the Constitution guarantees gay people the right to marry. But Davis contends the First Amendment guarantees her the right of religious freedom.

She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal Christian conviction. A federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses and an appeals court upheld that decision. Davis’ lawyers said they filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court Friday, asking that they delay the mandate to issue licenses until her appeal is finished, a process that could stretch for months.

Rowan County, Ky., Clerk Kim Davis, right, pictured walking with one of her attorneys, Roger Gannam, is asking the US Supreme Court to let her refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs.

Forcing her to abandon her Christian principles and issue licenses could never be undone, her attorney, Jonathan D. Christman, with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel, wrote the court. He compared it to forcing a person who objects to war into the battlefield, or forcing a person who opposes capital punishment to carry out an execution. “That searing act of personal validation would forever, and irreversibly, echo in her conscience — and, if it happened, there is no absolution or correction that any earthly court can provide to rectify it,” he wrote.

The couples could easily drive to a nearby county to get a marriage license, Davis argued. But the couples counter that they have a right to get a marriage license in the county where they live, work and pay taxes. Davis’ case will fall to Sixth Circuit Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal judge who joined the majority opinion in legalizing gay marriage. Kagan could reject it outright in a matter of days, or she could ask the couples’ attorneys to file a response and refer it to court for review.

MORE

See also:

Protesters have no free-speech rights on Supreme Court’s front porch
30 Aug.`15 - Free Speech Ends On The Steps Of The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is designated as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights, but the guarantee of protest and free speech ends on the steps to the plaza in front of the court’s grand marble temple, a unanimous federal appeals court panel ruled Friday. Demonstrators are allowed on the sidewalk in front of the court but not any closer to the famous portico promising “Equal Justice Under Law,” three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided. The fight over where protesters get to protest has been going on for years.

The appeals court judges upheld a 1949 law that forbids demonstrations on the grounds of the high court, on the premise that protests at the court’s doorstep might lead to the perception that the justices are swayed by vox populi rather than the dictates of the law. “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, who argued often before the court as a lawyer and is sometimes mentioned as a future Supreme Court justice.

On days when controversial cases are argued and decided, the 50-foot-wide sidewalks surrounding the court are filled with chanting, flag-waving, bullhorn-toting protesters of all stripes. The Supreme Court itself, in 1983, ruled that these sidewalks — on First Street NE, just across from the Capitol — are open for protests. But demonstrators are not allowed any closer. The court in its 1983 decision did not address the protest restrictions on the court’s grounds, which include the 252-by-98-foot oval marble plaza, with its fountains, benches, flagpoles and steps leading to the court’s iconic, six-ton bronze doors.

Critics have found the no-speech zone around the Supreme Court ironic if not hypocritical. The current court considers itself a fierce protector of political speech, knocking down restrictions on corporate spending on elections, for instance. The justices also struck a Massachusetts law that limited speech around abortion clinics. In 2010, because of security concerns, the court said the public was no longer allowed to enter through the massive front doors. Visitors must go through security checkpoints on the ground floor, although they may exit via the court’s front porch. The 1949 federal statute makes it unlawful to “parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

MORE

 

[BULLDOG]

They outlawed the words for insurance companies here before we had gay marriage. I got a letter from my company and they said they can no longer use the words husband, wife, marriage or divorce. Domestic partner was the replacement.

Was that a decision that the insurance company, themselves made, or is it something they were forced by law to do? I don't recall any new law requiring that. If there was, please give a link, Again, your claim shows that the name weasel is fitting for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Dems admit they redefined marriage"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

Two dozen democrats neither speak for, nor represent, 'all' democrats.

Moreover, the proposed legislation in no way seeks to 'redefine' marriage.

 

[Mr. H.]

My male son was married to his female bride by a male(?) minister who apologized at dinner because his husband(?) and their son(?) couldn't make it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Dems declare war on words husband wife Washington Examiner

And want more changes

Good plan, considering...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So Dim's want the words "Husband" and "Wife" replaced with gender neutral words.

Anyone surprised ?

The Dimocrat party of today is filled with people who hate traditional American culture, so moves like this shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So Dim's want the words "Husband" and "Wife" replaced with gender neutral words.

Anyone surprised ?

The Dimocrat party of today is filled with people who hate traditional American culture, so moves like this shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

There's plenty to hate. Not all, but plenty...

 

[Syriusly]

Dems declare war on words husband wife Washington Examiner

And want more changes

Oh noes......the horror......a gender neutral legal system......how will we survive?

 

[idb]

So Dim's want the words "Husband" and "Wife" replaced with gender neutral words.

Anyone surprised ?

The Dimocrat party of today is filled with people who hate traditional American culture, so moves like this shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

The Republican Party is filled with people who hate the American Constitution so their upset about marriage equality shouldn't be surprising.