The Kentucky Licence discussion II

[ChillyPolly]

So as a police officer can I decline to enforce laws which are formed or altered after my hiring date if they conflict with some belief or philosphy I hold as important?

Of course you can. Police decline to enforce laws all the time. His hire date rarely has anything to do with it.

[SayGen]

This has to be one of the more laughable comments made in this thread so far.

The idea of seeking refuge to practice your own beliefs is laughable? You are aware of why the pilgrims came to America aren't you? 
 

What are atheist practices?  Is there a playbook somewhere I'm missing?

 
The idea of removing all religious elements of life from the country. No religious symbols/teaching/documents/practices.
 

I think he's confusing atheism and secularism.

 
Nope. It was atheist groups who complained about Merry Christmas being said in retail stores not secularist. (I don't even know the name of a secularist group.....)
 

So as a police officer can I decline to enforce laws which are formed or altered after my hiring date if they conflict with some belief or philosphy I hold as important?
 
Also, are you familiar with the phrase 'separation of church and state'? It's almost as if that idea is based on the notion of of leaving religious beliefs outside of how we make and enforce laws in the US.

I would absolutely support your right not to enforce laws you are morally objected to.
Separation of church and state? Please show me what official US document has stated that there is separation of church and state. Hint: It's a guideline not a law.

Again just my 2¢ I know people get overly upset when you try to practice religion or stick up for it. Offense is not intended.

[ChillyPolly]

So the crux of this is...why are single people not allowed to share things like insurance with a significant other they've decided not to have? Maybe specific examples of things that would apply would help.

A bachelor man shares a household with his spinster sister. Both intend to stay single. Why should they not get the same tax breaks available to two gay married men. If they want to adopt a child together, why should the two gay men get preferential treatment under state guidelines that favor "married" couples for adoption. Why does the fact that the two gay men are boinking each other nightly make them special in the eyes of the law?

[TrueMetis]

I agree that single people are by definition not married, just as I agree that black people are by definition not white. But you have not explained why you believe married people deserve government privileges not available to single people; and specifically, why gay married people deserve privileges not available to single people.

 

What privileges are you talking about? Except perhaps a few tax benefits everything that being married gets you are either things that a single person has automatically (ability to makes medical decisions) or something it would be impossible to get as a single person (significant others pension in case of death)

 

And most of the tax benefits I'm aware of for marriage actually fall into the "impossible to get as a single person" category. Because you're just one person, with just one income.

 

ETA:

Nope. It was atheist groups who complained about Merry Christmas being said in retail stores not secularist. (I don't even know the name of a secularist group.....)

 

Which group complained exactly, I hear this claim a lot but no one seems to be able to point me to the actual group. And if they do exist they don't seem to be very powerful since plenty of stores still say Merry Christmas. And even if you can find me this group people complaining forces absolutely nothing. People complain about all sorts of things that are still being done.

 

And you want the name of a secular group, United States of America.

 

Separation of church and state? Please show me what official US document has stated that there is separation of church and state. Hint: It's a guideline not a law.

 

US Supreme Court says otherwise. It is interesting to hear the US constitution called a guideline though.

[Dr. Pepper]

So the crux of this is...why are single people not allowed to share things like insurance with a significant other they've decided not to have? Maybe specific examples of things that would apply would help.

 

Silly Polly makes a really good point.  I was in the hospital recently and I realized that it was totally unfair that I didn't have my own spouse to make my medical decisions and help pay for my treatment.  It's really unequal treatment and the government should be required to assign us all spouses at birth. 

 

I would absolutely support your right not to enforce laws you are morally objected to.
 

Of course, you must also support my right to not obey laws I morally object to, yes?  Because it's against my deeply held religious beliefs to not punch idiots and bigots in the nose so it would be wrong for me to be arrested and charged with assault simply for following my Goddess' authority.  

[karaddin]

A bachelor man shares a household with his spinster sister. Both intend to stay single. Why should they not get the same tax breaks available to two gay married men. If they want to adopt a child together, why should the two gay men get preferential treatment under state guidelines that favor "married" couples for adoption. Why does the fact that the two gay men are boinking each other nightly make them special in the eyes of the law?

So the only example of "platonic" you can come up with happens to be sibling, which wouldn't at all be an attempt to analogize homosexuality with incest now would it? Platonic friends absolutely can get married if they want, no one says they have to be fucking, and same sex marriage in fact makes it easier as they can be friends of the same sex! This should make you happy! A contract involving two people will continue to need two people however, so someone on their own really is out of luck.

 

And yes SayGen poor Christians really are so oppressed, and religion in general is viewed with contempt in the US - remind me again how many openly atheist presidents there have been? Or even just what percentage of current congress are openly atheist? It should give us a decent guideline for how everyone requires hostility to religion to be taken seriously. 

[ChillyPolly]

What privileges are you talking about?

The same ones the gay rights groups have loved to talk about when they would complain they were being treated unfairly.

And most of the tax benefits I'm aware of for marriage actually fall into the "impossible to get as a single person" category. Because you're just one person, with just one income.

Don't be silly. Married people are also individuals. Why cannot two friends get together and say they want to be taxed jointly on the same terms as married couples? Why does the government have the right to say: No you can't do that because you're not boinking each other nightly like those other two "married" men over here?

[ChillyPolly]

So the only example of "platonic" you can come up with happens to be sibling, which wouldn't at all be an attempt to analogize homosexuality with incest now would it?

Not at all, since I said nothing to suggest they were fucking each other. I am asking why they are being denied equal protection of the laws. I guess you could not think of an answer, so you tried to change the subject.

[TrueMetis]

The same ones the gay rights groups have loved to talk about when they would complain they were being treated unfairly.

 

Right, ones that require 2 people.

 

 

Don't be silly. Married people are also individuals. Why cannot two friends get together and say they want to be taxed jointly on the same terms as married couples? Why does the government have the right to say: No you can't do that because you're not boinking each other nightly like those other two "married" men over here?

 

Right but they're not single, and AFAIK there's nothing preventing two friends from getting married, because again AFAIK getting married doesn't require sex.

[karaddin]

Not at all, since I said nothing to suggest they were fucking each other. I am asking why they are being denied equal protection of the laws. I guess you could not think of an answer, so you tried to change the subject.

Your original claim, which you just reiterated, was platonic friends not family. They can enjoy the benefits, they can simply get married. Trying to make this about siblings is you trying to change the subject in the first place, and your entire argument is disingenuous.

[SayGen]

Which group complained exactly, I hear this claim a lot but no one seems to be able to point me to the actual group. And if they do exist they don't seem to be very powerful since plenty of stores still say Merry Christmas. And even if you can find me this group people complaining forces absolutely nothing. People complain about all sorts of things that are still being done.
 
And you want the name of a secular group, United States of America.
  
US Supreme Court says otherwise. It is interesting to hear the US constitution called a guideline though.

Please show me where the US Supreme Court declared us a secular nation?
Please show me in the US Constitution where it is written separation of church and state?

I eagerly await your response.
 

Of course, you must also support my right to not obey laws I morally object to, yes?  Because it's against my deeply held religious beliefs to not punch idiots and bigots in the nose so it would be wrong for me to be arrested and charged with assault simply for following my Goddess' authority.

Not enforcing something, and viciously attacking someone are two different things. Sorry you are unable (unwilling?) to distinguish between the 2.
Not issuing a married license won't kill anyone, assaulting someone can kill them. Religious and non religious people can agree that killing is wrong (Ignoring the abortion aspect of killing since that's a different argument.)

[ChillyPolly]

AFAIK getting married doesn't require sex.

Technically true. I wonder how many platonic friends will realize they can just "marry" for the tax breaks, and what the long term social implications of this would be.

Still, you dodged my example about the (platonic) siblings. They cannot marry, even if they do not intend to have sex.

[Dr. Pepper]

 
Not enforcing something, and viciously attacking someone are two different things. Sorry you are unable (unwilling?) to distinguish between the 2.
Not issuing a married license won't kill anyone, assaulting someone can kill them. Religious and non religious people can agree that killing is wrong (Ignoring the abortion aspect of killing since that's a different argument.)

Right, so a cop not enforcing the laws against assault because he similarly believes in the religious belief that idiots and bigots should be punched in the nose is perfectly ok, yes?  Or are you unwilling to allow your absurd religious exemption exist for anything other than teh gayz?

 

Or, since you've decided to randomly make this about lack of pain and death, let's talk about education.  A group of people prevent certain type of students from going to school because they believe descendants of Voldemort shouldn't be allowed to learn.  It's a small town and the major religion reigns there and everyone involved in the legal system from cops to prosecutors to judges are all anti-Voldemort so none decide to punish those who prevent students from their education.  It's all based on their deeply held religious beliefs, you see, and not being educated won't directly kill someone.  So this is ok, right?  In your world, it's ok as long as they claim "omg my religion says!!!!!!!!"?  

[ChillyPolly]

Your original claim, which you just reiterated, was platonic friends not family. They can enjoy the benefits, they can simply get married. Trying to make this about siblings is you trying to change the subject in the first place, and your entire argument is disingenuous.

Two friends in a platonic partnership might plausibly claim that to call themselves "married" would be a deception on the community, and that they should not be required to engage in deception, or be publicly perceived as homosexual, to claim equal protection of the laws.

[SayGen]

Right, so a cop not enforcing the laws against assault because he similarly believes in the religious belief that idiots and bigots should be punched in the nose is perfectly ok, yes?  Or are you unwilling to allow your absurd religious exemption exist for anything other than teh gayz?
 
Or, since you've decided to randomly make this about lack of pain and death, let's talk about education.  A group of people prevent certain type of students from going to school because they believe descendants of Voldemort shouldn't be allowed to learn.  It's a small town and the major religion reigns there and everyone involved in the legal system from cops to prosecutors to judges are all anti-Voldemort so none decide to punish those who prevent students from their education.  It's all based on their deeply held religious beliefs, you see, and not being educated won't directly kill someone.  So this is ok, right?  In your world, it's ok as long as they claim "omg my religion says!!!!!!!!"?

I can see you're getting upset. So I'll let you simmer down for a bit (Not trying to put you down, just helping you out).
To answer your question about education- Yes I would fully support a city's right to exclude any students based on any criteria. That being said--This is American and you can do this awesome thing called seek a different school. I would consider exceptions if there was a monopoly on schools.
There is a reason Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc are being forced more and more away from public school (Can't pray, can't read the bible/Torah/Koran, can't share the word, etc) and are choosing instead of attend charter schools. The effect is marvelous- not only are they getting a superior education (See Charter schools vs Public) but they are allowed to worship in peace with fellow believers free of persecution.

I don't care if you don't like me, I do care that you aren't giving me an alternative when I'm willing to always provide one for you.
IE: If you were in my town that was exclusively Religion of SayGen. I would insist you follow my rules and my way. I would not however, deny you the ability to seek out and establish your own place and set up your own rules and methods of doing things and would gladly submit to them if I entered your domain.

If a group of Anti-Saygen's wanted to set up I_HATE_SAYGENville I would be ok with that. I would even go a step further and support them. I would not however force myself or anyone else to live in I_HATE_SAYGENville, and always respect those who wish to live under different rules.

There is a reason I don't complain about gays in San Fran, or Mormons in Utah, or Evangelicals in SC, etc, etc.
I don't have to live there. I respect their lifestyles.
What I do have a problem with---is when you try to DICTATE that ALL AMERICAN SOIL will follow X belief/law.
My ancestors (the while ones, I'm part Native American as well) came to this country to be free of government tyranny and dictating how they worshiped and lived their lives.

I don't want the American experiment to fail. I want it to succeed. You should be able to come to this country from anywhere in the world, and have a place that you call home right here in American soil.

And with that I bid you adieu.

[TerraPrime]

I suspect that if we poll heterosexual people, the general consensus will be that marriage is a right, not a privilege. They will probably say that the government has no business denying them marriage except in limited cases, like incest or minors who cannot consent. This is regardless of the textual definition of privilege, under which legal marriage does fall. Operationally, in daily life, people do not see it as a privilege.

 

But semantics aside, if we accept that legally recognized unions are a privilege, then equality is to extend that privilege to all who cannot be legitimately excluded. In that light, I completely agree that some single people should enjoy the same privileges as are currently given to married couples. Single people should absolutely fight for these privileges if they want them. Let them organize, raise money, run campaigns, educate others, work with politicians, and create a cultural change. I will even help when I can.

 

However, before the series of laws and court rulings that made same-sex marriages legal in most of United States, different-sex single people can already freely enjoy the privilege by simply applying for a marrige license. Therefore, the discriminatory impact against them is minimal, and extends only to possible financial hardship over the cost of applying. If they are barred from marrying under the old system, due to prohibitions against multiple marriages perhaps, then they will continue to  be denied these privileges under the new system. What the new system does, though, is to allow same-sex single people to access these priivleges. So, there is a net increase in fairness. Right now, under the new system, any two individuals who are not direct family members and who can consent and who are not already legally married in another jurisdiction can marry each other. This is one step closer to full equality than before. 

 

Which brings us to the critique that the LBGT community didn't fight for equality because we didn't fight to extend the privilege to all people, including singles, is specious. If we apply the same sstandard, we will have to say that the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s didn't fight for equality, either, because they didn't address the issues of Asians and Latinos/Hispanic people. This critique is meaningless because no social justice movements can address the full spectrum of inequality in a single swoop. Yet, every successful movement brings our society one step closer to full equality, and thus, should not be dismissed as being insincere or hypocritical based on that that alone. Of course, if a movement deliberately seeks to hamper other movements or to bargain away the protection of others in order to benefit themselves, etc., then we can legitimately critize that movement as hypocritical or insincere. 

 

Finally, let us not forget, too, that family members already have, and will continue to have, some protections, like automatic next-of-kin recognition and such, that same-sex couples did not prior to these recent changes. Therefore, right now, after same-sex marriage is legal, the number of single people who cannot partake in the privileges has been greatly reduced, mostly limited to those who are deemed unsuitable for legal marriages (consent issues, incest, polygamy/polygyny). Other than in polygamy/polygyny, I don't see where the complaint of discrimination is. 

[TrueMetis]

Please show me where the US Supreme Court declared us a secular nation?
Please show me in the US Constitution where it is written separation of church and state?

I eagerly await your response.
 

 

Any of the hundreds of decisions that said that the Government can't promote religion. See McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), no religious instruction in Public Schools. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Applicants for Public office cannot be required to swear the believe in a god. Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Schools cannot sponsor prayers.

 

Though Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) puts in plainest. Which made it clear a statute must do three things in order to not violate the First Amendment 1) It must have "a secular legislative purpose," 2)it must not cause  "an excessive government entanglement with religion." and 3) It must neither advance nor inhibit religion

 

Number 1 is the most important, if the US wasn't secular statutes wouldn't have to be secular.

 

As for where it is written. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

I'd like to know what interpretation of the first Amendment that suggests something other than separation of church and state.

 

 

Technically true. I wonder how many platonic friends will realize they can just "marry" for the tax breaks, and what the long term social implications of this would be.

Still, you dodged my example about the (platonic) siblings. They cannot marry, even if they do not intend to have sex.

 

I didn't actually see that one, so no need to accuse me of "dodging" things. And sure they cannot marry, so if they want to campaign to be able to do so, or create a similar non-romantic institution they can do so. Thing is in order to get something, you must have people who want that thing.

[Wise Fool]

I actually agree with the first sentence, as it might be applied in other contexts. I am just pointing out that the first sentence does not take into account THIS context, or the reasoning behind OBERGEFELL. Ms Davis is being directly ordered by Federal Courts to issue a marriage license, for the specific reasons outlined by Justice Kennedy. I am merely taking that context into account.

Yeah, sure, if Kentucky were to legalize civil unions, that would not necessarily imply approval of gay marriage. Even if, as a matter of semantics, Kentucky were to call such unions "marriages" in their associated statutes, licenses and certificates, that would not necessarily imply approval of gay marriage. It would only be semantics. I suppose even if they granted such gay unions most or all of the same rights and privileges as heterosextual married couples, even then it might not necessarily signal approval. There might be other policy reasons. And even if it did signal approval, it would only signal approval on the part of the legislature and government of Kentucky (who are after all entitled to their opinions), and not on the part of County Clerks, whose functions, in that context, would indeed be purely ministerial.

But in this case Ms. Davis, whose job functions, as defined by her boss the Kentucky government, do NOT normally involve issueing "marriage" licenses to gays, is being directly ordered by Federal Courts to issue this document, precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy sees this document as a token of approval from state officials -- precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy believes that gay "dignity" requires that gays receive a pat on the head (plus cookies) from the Daddy state.

 

Davis' job functions are to issue "marriage licenses" to people who qualify, period. There were always various restrictions about who is and isn't qualified. It just so happens that one of those exclusions was changed because the law of the land changed. (I am sure defenders of religious liberty will be relieved to note that children, dead people, animals and inanimate objects are still excluded from qualifying.) It wasn't ever her job to judge who qualified, based merely on her superstitious and frankly arbitrary personal bigotries, was it?

[Dr. Pepper]

I can see you're getting upset. So I'll let you simmer down for a bit (Not trying to put you down, just helping you out).
To answer your question about education- Yes I would fully support a city's right to exclude any students based on any criteria. That being said--This is American and you can do this awesome thing called seek a different school. I would consider exceptions if there was a monopoly on schools.
There is a reason Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc are being forced more and more away from public school (Can't pray, can't read the bible/Torah/Koran, can't share the word, etc) and are choosing instead of attend charter schools. The effect is marvelous- not only are they getting a superior education (See Charter schools vs Public) but they are allowed to worship in peace with fellow believers free of persecution.

I don't care if you don't like me, I do care that you aren't giving me an alternative when I'm willing to always provide one for you.
IE: If you were in my town that was exclusively Religion of SayGen. I would insist you follow my rules and my way. I would not however, deny you the ability to seek out and establish your own place and set up your own rules and methods of doing things and would gladly submit to them if I entered your domain.

If a group of Anti-Saygen's wanted to set up I_HATE_SAYGENville I would be ok with that. I would even go a step further and support them. I would not however force myself or anyone else to live in I_HATE_SAYGENville, and always respect those who wish to live under different rules.

There is a reason I don't complain about gays in San Fran, or Mormons in Utah, or Evangelicals in SC, etc, etc.
I don't have to live there. I respect their lifestyles.
What I do have a problem with---is when you try to DICTATE that ALL AMERICAN SOIL will follow X belief/law.
My ancestors (the while ones, I'm part Native American as well) came to this country to be free of government tyranny and dictating how they worshiped and lived their lives.

I don't want the American experiment to fail. I want it to succeed. You should be able to come to this country from anywhere in the world, and have a place that you call home right here in American soil.

And with that I bid you adieu.

Ah, so basically you support radical segregation.  I see.  

[Brandon Stark]

The idea of seeking refuge to practice your own beliefs is laughable? You are aware of why the pilgrims came to America aren't you? 
 
 
The idea of removing all religious elements of life from the country. No religious symbols/teaching/documents/practices.
 
 
Nope. It was atheist groups who complained about Merry Christmas being said in retail stores not secularist. (I don't even know the name of a secularist group.....)
 

I would absolutely support your right not to enforce laws you are morally objected to.
Separation of church and state? Please show me what official US document has stated that there is separation of church and state. Hint: It's a guideline not a law.

Again just my 2¢ I know people get overly upset when you try to practice religion or stick up for it. Offense is not intended.

 

Support my right all you want, I'd still be in the wrong. If a person has a warrant for their arrest and I refuse to arrest them because I disagree in principal with the law, I'm incapable of fulfilling my duties and should be disciplined at the least and fired if it's a permenant problem. There are oaths and implied agreements involved in being an employee of a governmental body that strip me of the ability to interject too much of my personal beliefs into how I approach enforcing the laws of my state and the constitution...otherwise the system breaks down. If a person has a problem with that, he/she shouldn't be a police officer.

 

 

The same applies to Davis. Her 'moral stand,' could have just as easily been to publicly resign, giving her religious beliefs as grounds. She likely would have still been picked up as a champion by conservative Christians, and spared herself the embarrassment of her past transgressions becoming so public. All the hot Huckabee action, fewer punchlines.