Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

[Skylar]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

 

[jillian]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

what part of kentucky law is subordinate to federal law and they won't be allowed to have two forms once the court gets hold of it don't you understand?

 

[jillian]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

she?

 

[jillian]

How about getting rid of marriage licensing altogether? Why in a supposedly free country do we need permission from the government to get married?

that's imbecilic. marriage is a creation of government.

It is no such thing whatsoever. Marriage has existed for thousands of years as a religious institution. Governments adopted marriage over time.

free country? only children think there shouldn't be rules.

but amazing how stupid bigotry makes people

It's even more amazing how weak and ignorant statism makes people

lol. ok pretend libertarian.

The position I just stated doesn't get any more libertarian than that.

pretend libertarians stamping their feet and demanding no rules and hate the government... until the pretend libertarians want the state to pass misogynist, theocratic laws telling women what to do with their most personal decisions.

so, like i said.

 

[pwjohn]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

what part of kentucky law is subordinate to federal law and they won't be allowed to have two forms once the court gets hold of it don't you understand?

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

There are many Churches that accept gay people and will even provide them with religious weddings.

Therefore many gays are also "church going folks". Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive things.


>>>>

 

[pwjohn]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

There are many Churches that accept gay people and will even provide them with religious weddings.

Therefore many gays are also "church going folks". Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive things.


>>>>

Yes, that's true enough. And thank you for mentioning it.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

No they can't. Bride is a woman. Two gay men cannot honestly select that. Groom is a man. Two lesbians cannot honestly select that. And since these are public forms, you cannot lie and sign your name to them in order to obtain a license..

 

[mdk]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

No they can't. Bride is a woman. Two gay men cannot honestly select that. Groom is a man. Two lesbians cannot honestly select that. And since these are public forms, you cannot lie and sign your name to them in order to obtain a license..

You clearly do not know what you are talking about but that has never stopped you before:

Under Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West, R-Paris, one marriage license would designate the “bride” and “groom” and the other would designate “first party” and “second party.” West said couples could use either form, both of which would require applicants to note their genders so historians who review marriage licenses could know their sex.

Read more here: Kentucky Senate approves bill to require two different marriage license forms

Again, this hissy fit is nothing more than a waste of paper since either couple can use either license.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

... until the pretend libertarians want the state to pass misogynist, theocratic laws telling women what to do with their most personal decisions.

so, like i said.

Which libertarians want to do that? The Libertarian Party platform is pro-choice.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about, but that wouldn't be the first time.

 

[hazlnut]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

These homophones are great at contradicting themselves in a single sentence:

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."


I'm guessing our resident bigots and homophones here at USMB won't see it. To them, the above statement is perfectly logical.

Separate but equal, sound familiar.

It has everything to do with discrimination.

 

[Silhouette]

These homophones are great at contradicting themselves in a single sentence:

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
I'm guessing our resident bigots and homophones here at USMB won't see it. To them, the above statement is perfectly logical...Separate but equal, sound familiar....It has everything to do with discrimination.

Separate but equal is an issue only applying to race. Behaviors aren't race. I warned your cult long ago that your false premise would come back to haunt you. That you got a majority of the High Court to buy your false-premise and shut out children's unique interests in the marriage contract at Obergefell last year, doesn't mean it's a done-deal.

Loving v Virginia did not dismantle the skeleton of marriage. Races have been intermarrying since marriage was invented to benefit kids with a mother and father over a thousand years ago. So of course Loving won. A black father and a white mother are still a father and mother.

This is a whole other ball of wax. Behaviors aren't race.

 

[Skylar]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

No they can't. Bride is a woman. Two gay men cannot honestly select that. Groom is a man. Two lesbians cannot honestly select that. And since these are public forms, you cannot lie and sign your name to them in order to obtain a license..

Says you, citing your imaginary version of the law. Your own article contradicts you. Kentucky Legislators contradict you. Anyone can use either form.

Remember, Sil...and this point is fundamental: You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

These homophones are great at contradicting themselves in a single sentence:

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
I'm guessing our resident bigots and homophones here at USMB won't see it. To them, the above statement is perfectly logical...Separate but equal, sound familiar....It has everything to do with discrimination.

Separate but equal is an issue only applying to race. Behaviors aren't race. I warned your cult long ago that your false premise would come back to haunt you. That you got a majority of the High Court to buy your false-premise and shut out children's unique interests in the marriage contract at Obergefell last year, doesn't mean it's a done-deal.

Save of course that there is no 'haunting'. As the only source you've cited its yourself. Loving v. Virginia was cited in Windsor v. US. You insisted it was irrelevant. Loving v. Virginia was predictably cited again in Obergefell. And you again laughably insist that its irrelevant.

Your entire argument is merely ignoring the Supreme Court and making up whatever you'd wish. As same sex marriage being legal in every State demonstrates, you citing you is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. As your source has no idea what she's talking about.

Loving v Virginia did not dismantle the skeleton of marriage. Races have been intermarrying since marriage was invented to benefit kids with a mother and father over a thousand years ago. So of course Loving won. A black father and a white mother are still a father and mother.

Nor did Obergefell. Every marriage that was legal before Obergefell is legal after.

 

[Skylar]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

she?

Oh, definitely she. We've been speculating for a long time. It was confirmed a few days ago.

 

[pwjohn]

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

No they can't. Bride is a woman. Two gay men cannot honestly select that. Groom is a man. Two lesbians cannot honestly select that. And since these are public forms, you cannot lie and sign your name to them in order to obtain a license..

Your opinion is noted. No matter how wrong it is.

 

[jillian]

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

she?

Oh, definitely she. We've been speculating for a long time. It was confirmed a few days ago.

wow. you don't meet a lot of obsessively homophobic women.

what a vile thing.

 

[Skylar]

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

she?

Oh, definitely she. We've been speculating for a long time. It was confirmed a few days ago.

wow. you don't meet a lot of obsessively homophobic women.

what a vile thing.

She's got a lot of time on her hands with a disability and a recent death in the family. It can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on obsessive compulsive behavior.

 

[jillian]

Did you read the entire article?

Republican Sen. Stephen West, the sponsor of the bill and whose district includes Rowan County, said gay couples could choose to use the "bride" and "groom" form if they wished.

Yeah, but you're citing the *actual* law. SIl is always citing the one she sees in the wasteland of her mind.

Its the same place her imaginary version of Ferber, Windsor, Obergefell and the Prince's Trust study reside.

she?

Oh, definitely she. We've been speculating for a long time. It was confirmed a few days ago.

wow. you don't meet a lot of obsessively homophobic women.

what a vile thing.

She's got a lot of time on her hands with a disability and a recent death in the family. It can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on obsessive compulsive behavior.

ok. fair enough.

sad though

 

[jillian]

In Kentucky there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. There's merely marriage. Which both same sex and opposite sex couples can enter into.

Well.....not exactly...

Yes, exactly. Remember Sil....same sex couples can use *either* form.

Not according to Kentucky law they can't.

what part of kentucky law is subordinate to federal law and they won't be allowed to have two forms once the court gets hold of it don't you understand?

I'm certain that what you say is correct. But until the courts get involved, and rule, Gays can, if they so choose, select the bride & groom marriage license over & above the other license just so they'll be getting the same one used by church going folks.

I didn't say that Kentucky couldn't do it. I said the court proceedings to follow are going to waste our tax money.

it's just bizarre to me to see what comes out of that world.