Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

[Silhouette]

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

If you want to get truly historical as to the origins of marriage...it is an institution created to keep a mother and father together to raise children and be sure they get the proper inheritance etc.

Mother/father...that was eliminated June 26, 2015. By people who grew up with a mother and father...on behalf of petitioners who also grew up with a mother and father.

Welcome to the new age of using kids as lab rats.

 

[Agit8r]

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

If you want to get truly historical as to the origins of marriage...it is an institution created to keep a mother and father together to raise children and be sure they get the proper inheritance etc.

Mother/father...that was eliminated June 26, 2015. By people who grew up with a mother and father...on behalf of petitioners who also grew up with a mother and father.

Welcome to the new age of using kids as lab rats.

And yet, no one questions the validity of the marriage of those who are sterile.

 

[koshergrl]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

That is not remotely true. If you look at the Old Testament, there was no "traditional marriage." Men bought and sold women like chattels. There wasn't even a special word for husband or wife. Merely man and woman.
We don't see references to marriage in any modern sense in the Middle Eastern traditions until that region was subjected to the Roman state.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Unless we are to believe that modern marriage is based on the Pagan beliefs, which seems unlikely given their inherent non-uniformity.

They were married according to the rules of their individual religions and the state had no authority. You seem to think it's not marriage UNLESS there's state oversight. Trust me the bible is full of marriage references that have nothing to do with govt. And other religions also did (and do) practice marriage as a religious construct...long before any established government interfered. Pagans, Hindu, picts, Christians, Jews....all had religious marriage rights long before any govt assumed the role of licensing.

 

[Seawytch]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

More likely the state was invited in when one party sued another...you know, like a woman suing for the right to own property within the marriage.

When ‘Redefining Marriage’ Meant That Women Had To Be Treated Like Human Beings

 

[Syriusly]

Four

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

Four members of the SCOTUS happen to agree. But don't let that stop you.

5 members of the Supreme Court agreed on the legal opinion of the court.

The minority opinions of the court are interesting side notes but have no legal relevance.

Meanwhile- Americans in love are getting married in all 50 states- isn't it wonderful?

next you get to ruin religious freedom, and eventually freedom of thought. Is that great as well?
.

If your religious freedom is 'ruined' by a gay couple marrying- then it sounds like the problem you have is with your religion- not with gays getting married.

If your freedom of thought is 'ruined' by a gay couple getting married- then it sounds like the problem you have with how you think- not with gays getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

If you want to get truly historical as to the origins of marriage...it is an institution created to keep a mother and father together to raise children and be sure they get the proper inheritance etc.

Mother/father...that was eliminated June 26, 2015. By people who grew up with a mother and father...on behalf of petitioners who also grew up with a mother and father.

Welcome to the new age of using kids as lab rats.

Welcome to Silhouette's continued meltdown.

Gay parents were raising kids prior to 6/26/15- married gay parents were raising kids prior to 6/26/15- and married gay parents will be raising kids after 6/26/15.

Silhouette just is sad that their children will have married parents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

That is not remotely true. If you look at the Old Testament, there was no "traditional marriage." Men bought and sold women like chattels. There wasn't even a special word for husband or wife. Merely man and woman.
We don't see references to marriage in any modern sense in the Middle Eastern traditions until that region was subjected to the Roman state.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Unless we are to believe that modern marriage is based on the Pagan beliefs, which seems unlikely given their inherent non-uniformity.

They were married according to the rules of their individual religions and the state had no authority. You seem to think it's not marriage UNLESS there's state oversight. Trust me the bible is full of marriage references that have nothing to do with govt. And other religions also did (and do) practice marriage as a religious construct...long before any established government interfered. Pagans, Hindu, picts, Christians, Jews....all had religious marriage rights long before any govt assumed the role of licensing.

At least you’re consistent at being ridiculous and wrong.

If a member of the clergy who is not authorized by his state of residence to indeed perform marriages, then the marriages he performs are not legally valid as a matter of state contract law.

 

[Syriusly]

"... "at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built."
"Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."
"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I think its telling that our resident Nazi agrees with the minority opinion in the courts decision.

Meanwhile what was the majority opinion again?

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v.
Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479,
484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them
its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry
but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is
protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388
U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v.
Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the
right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship in-
volving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a
one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion
of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed
broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing
whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry
has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454.
This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12.
(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with
equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding
connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated
interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause.

 

[Agit8r]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

That is not remotely true. If you look at the Old Testament, there was no "traditional marriage." Men bought and sold women like chattels. There wasn't even a special word for husband or wife. Merely man and woman.
We don't see references to marriage in any modern sense in the Middle Eastern traditions until that region was subjected to the Roman state.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Unless we are to believe that modern marriage is based on the Pagan beliefs, which seems unlikely given their inherent non-uniformity.

They were married according to the rules of their individual religions and the state had no authority. You seem to think it's not marriage UNLESS there's state oversight. Trust me the bible is full of marriage references that have nothing to do with govt. And other religions also did (and do) practice marriage as a religious construct...long before any established government interfered. Pagans, Hindu, picts, Christians, Jews....all had religious marriage rights long before any govt assumed the role of licensing.

You can call it marriage all you want. But the selling or giving of girls or women to men is not modern marriage. Modern marriage is a compact entered into by consenting adults for cohabitation, the mutual possession of property, in many (but not all) cases, the custody of children, tax code benefits, etc. It is in short, a mutual and equal compact for the supposed benefit of both parties. There is no analogue to such a compact in the ancient world, save perhaps the covenants entered into between one man and another.

 

[emilynghiem]

I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

What fantasy are you living? Matriarchal societies are rare in human history and have never been the norm, even among pre homo Sapiens species of humans.

Hi SwimExpert I'm backtracking to where we first diverged on this matriarchy subject.

I think we are interpreting matriarchy by two extremely different approaches.

I use the term to mean BOTH literal cases of matriarchies in specific instances,
OR to mean the general trend of favoring female energy in relations which isn't necessarily physically female.

Clearly you mean just the literal matriarchy, but I was also including the broader culture.

Yes, I agree there are limited specific instances of literal matriarchies historically.

I do want to INCLUDE and refer to the specific historical lineages that were matriarchal in nature. Although I am not just talking about specific instances, but greater social TRENDS.

I also recognize spiritually and culturally, some people or groups
are more spiritually "female dominant" in energy approach..

Even though Buddhism is not considered matriarchal "literally"
it is more earth-based with relativistic/holistic connection to the "collective" or "whole Creation as one"
which is more of the "maternal" spirit.

Most people would say Buddhism (or Pagan beliefs) are NOT LITERALLY matriarchal,
but that's the same general spirit I am referring to.

Lots of cultures have this 'maternalistic' approach to God/Life as "Mother Nature"
and it isn't LITERALLY "matriarchal"

I still include that in the GENERAL sense,
and I agree with you that in the SPECIFIC sense that is VERY limited.