Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't agree with her. I don't see the harm in giving them the right to marry. But I support her religious convictions.

Go somewhere else. It's just a piece of paper.

Besides, the witch is doing them a favor by saving them from a nasty divorce.

Saying "go somewhere else" is fine when it's a private business, not a public official.

Well, if you love causing even more hatred then drive on. I'd rather everyone get along. But you get a church lady asshole bumping heads with a bunch of gay activists, shit happens. I think both should chill the **** out.

people do not "cause hatred" by standing up for their rights.

I would say the bigot is deserving of hate. but really, she's deserving of pity for her ignorance. and most certainly deserving of larges fines and jail time for violating the order of the supreme court and deserving of losing her job.... which I figure is imminent -- hopefully.

You bigots want to make sure that everyone submits to your demonic agenda and if anyone DARES to dissent, it sends you into fits of demonic fury. That much is clear.

go wipe the spittle off of your face. the bigot is you.

but you're really funny when you go all insane like that.

I aim to please, dear.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

Looking through the prism of history, it's not easy to see that slavery had yet to become an entrenched part of the economy for all states in the 18th century. Yes it would have been difficult, but much less so before it grew into an issue that would lead inevitably to secession. My point is, they didn't even try. And let's face it, it's because they didn't want to.

The issue was property. Regardless of how vital slaves were to the economy of a given state, they were a considerable property investment by individuals who owned them. The abolishment of slavery would nullify that investment and cause massive turmoil within each state in which it occurred. Abolishment would have caused damage to the individual states that had significant slave populations.

'Looking through the lens of history', the 'United States' was barely more than a notional concept in the 1780s. These representatives were for their state first. And for a nation only if it benefitted their states. Abolition would have caused significant damage to most of the southern states.

Even without abolition, the constitution barely passed. There is virtually no chance of ratification of the constitution with such a provision in it. While a significant danger to the States collectively and individually if they didn't unify more tightly.

The issues that motivated the constitutional convention and the writing of the Constitution were issues of practicality, functionality and security. Slavery was not the motivation. The issues that motivated the writing of the cosntitjution dominated. The issues that didn't motivate its writing were largely subordinate.

My angle is a little different here. The 13% black population in this country today and all the problems we're dealing with today because of it is because slavery became an industry with demand from southern states being accommodated by northern states bringing in hordes of them by ship. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Lincoln's plan was indeed to create a nation of freed black slaves. A nation that was in fact created. Lincoln, being a product of his age and experience, didn't think that the black and white man could live together in harmony. He stated, rather bluntly, that the whites would take advantage of the blacks and dominate them as the blacks lacked the capacities that whites possessed.

Lincoln's views changed over time, specifically after he was exposed to black men like Fredrick Douglas. Douglas was extremely well educated, articulate, thoughtful, and insightful. His many conversations with Lincoln convinced the President that his views of the black man may not be universal. Shortly before his murder, he advocated making citizens out of 'exceptional' blacks and any former slave that fought in the civil war.

For one who didn't think any black should ever be a citizen, this was a huge change in position. One of the things I liked about Lincoln....is that his positions could change based on the evidence.

So Lincoln never advocated that all blacks remain in the country.

He never got the chance to. He was assassinated long before he ever might have. But he'd already moved from all blacks being shipped overseas.....to 'exceptional' blacks and veterans being US citizens. His position on the matter was clearly not immutable.

Odd for me to realize that America would have been better off if Lincoln were not assassinated. BTW, we're WAY off topic!

The south would have been way better off if Lincoln were not assassinated. Lincoln reigned in the most radical republicans in his party that wanted to punish the south for their insurrection. Lincoln proposed a more 'prodigal son' approach, welcoming the states back as lost brothers with help from the government to help rebuild their infrastructure.

With Lincoln's assassination the more radical elements within his party were more influential in forming post war policy and the terms of the South's return to full statehood. Those terms were much, much harsher than what Lincoln had advocated.

That's true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorta like how government clerks don't have the right to deny them a marriage license?

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Babies have nothing to do with marriage rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

Th court allowed Jim Crow and The Dred Scott decision, too. Bad law is bad law and can and should be changed.

One has nothing to do with the other. Bad laws don't make good laws bad laws.

 

[jillian]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

Th court allowed Jim Crow and The Dred Scott decision, too. Bad law is bad law and can and should be changed.

in 1890... but not in 1950.

and?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Babies have nothing to do with marriage rights.

Legal marriage was created because of babies. They have everything to do with marriage benefits.

 

[Seawytch]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Babies have nothing to do with marriage rights.

Legal marriage was created because of babies. They have everything to do with marriage benefits.

No they don't. You get the benefits whether you have children or not.

The government got involved in marriage because a man wanted a women's property and a woman didn't want to give it up.

 

[playtime]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

Seems your side are the haters. Calling her a **** and *****. Also, you know jack shit what is behind the 3/5th rule. I'm embarrassed for you.

It was to figure out fair representation per state through census taking.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

The 3/5 'person' meant the black slave.... as in not fully human & certainly was 'property' .

I've read many more crude euphemisms for 'gays' on this forum than what that woman was called. & I didn't see anybody calling her a **** like you claimed.

 

[playtime]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

That's why it is a living document.

 

[LittleNipper]

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

That's why it is a living document.

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

 

[playtime]

Sorta like how government clerks don't have the right to deny them a marriage license?

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. Should infertile couples be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

 

[FA_Q2]

The County Clerk in her position of office has no authority to pass judgment on the moral standing of those who apply for certificates.

A father walks in with his biological daughter. You lose.

False equivalency. There are factual medical reasons why that would never be legal to do. Will you be using the 'next a man will want to marry his dog' rwnj talking point analogy next? Let me stop you before you do:

An animal cannot make a consenting decision to do something like that, so that stupid comparison isn't worth anymore debate.

You can't marry your goat only because some SCOTUS judges havent ruled that you can --- yet. It's coming. Don't doubt me

No, its not.

You MIGHT get the prohibitions on inter-familial marriages and plural marriages to move at some point but who cares - if they want to marry their cousin then so be it. It is their right.

You will NOT, however, get children and non-humans. That prohibition is centered around consent and contract - children cannot consent and therefore cannot be married end of story. If it just so happens that cousins and other people generally barred from marrying suddenly start to what changes for you?

Nothing at all.

 

[mudwhistle]

I can certainly respect that sentiment. Resignation would be reasonable. Perhaps taking her name off of the certificates and allowing someone else in her office to issue them

But I've heard her rants. There's an awful lot of politics in her position as well. I suspect that a portion of this is grandstanding for attention.

A portion?!? She's being egged on by the liberty council.

A portion. Some of her rhetoric is religious. Some of it poltical. With her decrying issues of State sovereignty and Federal power. Which kinda takes the shine off the 'God's Authority' angle.

Her multiple divorces takes care of her 'God's Authority' angle.

My wife has been married 4 times. Every one of them she found out was a wife-beater......except me.

She still believes strongly in God.

But Biblically, she is still married to her first husband, unless there was adultery by him & Biblically speaking, she has committed adultery with her subsequent marriages.

I think she's been forgiven. That's the nice thing about Jesus. He washes your sins away if you repent n' stuff.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

The Bible is just another book.......

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A portion?!? She's being egged on by the liberty council.

A portion. Some of her rhetoric is religious. Some of it poltical. With her decrying issues of State sovereignty and Federal power. Which kinda takes the shine off the 'God's Authority' angle.

Her multiple divorces takes care of her 'God's Authority' angle.

My wife has been married 4 times. Every one of them she found out was a wife-beater......except me.

She still believes strongly in God.

But Biblically, she is still married to her first husband, unless there was adultery by him & Biblically speaking, she has committed adultery with her subsequent marriages.

I think she's been forgiven. That's the nice thing about Jesus. He washes your sins away if you repent n' stuff.

what happened to the second coming...oh well

 

[playtime]

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

That's why it is a living document.

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

The Bible is chock full of slave owning itself.

 

[FA_Q2]

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

I don't agree with her.... But these folks can go to another county and get a license. She just feels she's going to hell if she gives them the right to do what she feels is a sin.

That is not acceptable.

If she truly has these religious convictions then she can resign and that is the ONLY recourse she should be allowed to ever take. The government cannot force her to marry people that she is religiously convicted not to HOWEVER if that conviction interferes with her official duties as a representative of the government then she can no longer hold that position.

At no time EVER is my government allowed to deny me basic access to my rights using governmental power because of religious convictions. The government is specifically barred from applying religions standards to me.

 

[Syriusly]

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

Now they aren't 3/5 of a person. They are mostly dead. Just not fast enough.

Let blacks kill each other and abort themselves into oblivion. Whites should protect themselves and let nature take its course.

Nothing says 'patriotic American' more than hoping for the death of millions of Americans.

Or just being sick of nice white cops with families being given the all too dangerous task of controlling America's chimp population .

I don't believe any cops have been killed by the few chimp's in America.

Personally, I am just as opposed to the murder of the policeman on the right as the policeman on the left.
Why am I not surprised that you aren't?

Officer Benjamin Deen, left, and Officer Liquori Tate were shot and killed in the line of duty on May 9, 2015, in Hattiesburg, Miss.

 

[FA_Q2]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. should infertile couple be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

Should a father and daughter be barred from marrying?

 

[bodecea]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Babies have nothing to do with marriage rights.

Legal marriage was created because of babies. They have everything to do with marriage benefits.

Therefore marriage laws refer to procreation requirements...............nowhere.