Jump to content

The Kentucky Licence discussion II


Stubby

Recommended Posts

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?

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.

???

How do you post these two things immediately one after the other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not getting the "her signature is a personal endorsement" piece. The SCOTUS decision was about the United States as s whole, not about individual clerks. In effect, Kennedy's peculiar locutions notwithstanding, insofar as her signature is an endorsement at all, it is the endorsement of the State of Kentucky, in its charge as one of the United States. If she holds the job of a clerk that issues licenses, that endorsement is not hers to withhold with impunity, and nor should it be.

What kind of government can be had when individuals employed by it are permitted to enforce their own policies in contradiction of their employer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

It's funny cuz someone directly answered your extremely stupid question about where in the constitution separation of church and state is written, and instead you decided to tell someone to "simmer down" and then bid everyone adieu, instead of addressing the factual criticism of your terrible post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's funny cuz someone directly answered your extremely stupid question about where in the constitution separation of church and state is written, and instead you decided to tell someone to "simmer down" and then bid everyone adieu, instead of addressing the factual criticism of your terrible post. 

He's probably in the process of moving to a theocracy, because his current religion prevents him from living under the tyranny of the US constitution where he's viciously criminalized for harassment, discrimination, and failing to follow laws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...
I think we have a problem in this country (of which I am a citizen) of not accepting other people's right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
All over this planet we are constantly being forced to engage in atheist practices. Where on this planet can you live in a religious manner? We need a sanctum for religious people who want to live in peace according to their believes, instead of imposing atheism on everyone.

Of course, and for decades people with religions that allow for same sex marriage where prevented from expressing that by living in a country that comes from a tradition that does not allow it. The simplest freedom of religion argument is for the recognition of same sex marriages by society, and thus by having the people we delegate the responsibility to to simply sign the marriage certificate.

 

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.

How many people who want the tax breaks are still likely to marry once they recognize all the obligations that come with marriage?

There is of course precedent with 'green card marriages', even though the government doesn't seem to like those.

And for siblings, at least over here there is a solution. A type of contract one step below marriage and civil union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samenlevingscontract ) open to them and any other comers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Yes, they they were denied the right to persecute people for their beliefs, so they set out for a land where they could do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they they were denied the right to persecute people for their beliefs, so they set out for a land where they could do so.

That's true. They came from the Netherlands,where they went after leaving England, and well known then for tolerating other religious beliefs, and then on to America, as the Dutch were too tolerant in their opinion and giving their children a bad example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question here. I am living in Kentucky, I decide to run for office as I strive to do good, and I am elected as the county registrar. On the road to Damascus, (I assist with the Syrian refugee crisis on the side) I am struck with a blinding revelation. Religious belief is the root of the strife in the world. I come back to Kentucky and then start to deny marriage licences to all couples that tell me they intend to get married in a church. Would I have the support of all those people who oppose gay marriage? As a born again atheist, my beliefs are sincere, and does that qualify for the support of all right thinking people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I come back to Kentucky and then start to deny marriage licences to all couples that tell me they intend to get married in a church. Would I have the support of all those people who oppose gay marriage?

 

No, I think you'd still have to deny licenses to everybody because discrimination!  Do that, though, and I'm sure they'd be fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

How do you post these two things immediately one after the other?


??????????????????

WFT are you talking about. There is no contradiction between the two statements. There is no contradiction between saying that one pair of people (a gay couple) are boinking each other nightly and that another pair of people (sibling housemates) are not.

And why are you and pretending I uttered the statements in the precisely same context "immediately one after the other". They were different posts and the context was spelled out beforehand in both cases.

Talk about arguing in bad faith!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they they were denied the right to persecute people for their beliefs, so they set out for a land where they could do so.

 

It does show the "you're oppressing us by not allowing us to oppress others" line of thought has been around for a damn long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question here. I am living in Kentucky, I decide to run for office as I strive to do good, and I am elected as the county registrar. On the road to Damascus, (I assist with the Syrian refugee crisis on the side) I am struck with a blinding revelation. Religious belief is the root of the strife in the world. I come back to Kentucky and then start to deny marriage licences to all couples that tell me they intend to get married in a church. Would I have the support of all those people who oppose gay marriage? As a born again atheist, my beliefs are sincere, and does that qualify for the support of all right thinking people?

 

Yeah the idea a person can interfere with secular government because they think a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

She's not an employee of "the land" (i.e., the U.S.A.).  She is an employee of Kentucky.  But her job functions as defined by Kentucky are not as you say.  It is "her job" to issue marriage licenses to gays only because Federal Courts told her to.  Which makes you and I and the Catholic priest and the Jewish Rabbi and anyone under the sun potentially in the same position.  If Justice Kennedy or Judge Bunning tells Father Michael or Rabbi Moshe to issue a marriage certificate to gays, then it is now their job to do so, because the Supreme Law of the Land just changed, and told them what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

She's not an employee of "the land".  She is an employee of Kentucky.  But her job functions as defined by Kentucky are not as you say.  It is "her job" to do these things only because Federal Court's told her to.  Which makes you and I and the Catholic priest and the Jewish Rabbi and anyone under the sun potentially in the same position.  If Justice Kennedy or Judge Bunning tells Father Michael or Rabbi Moshe to issue a marriage certificate to gays, then it is now their job to do so, because the Supreme Law of the Land just changed, and told them what to do.

 

What on earth are you talking about? A rabbi or a priest are not elected officials charged with and agreed to act on behalf of the government of Kentucky. They can officiate a wedding, but they cannot grant a marriage license. Kentucky's restriction on marriage was changed because the SCOTUS ruled that the particular restriction is unconstitutional. Until Kentucky can get that decision overturned, that is indeed the law of the land. If Davis' ethics compels her to disobey that law, then hurray for her courage to stand up for her beliefs, but she's still legally in the wrong, and will have to suffer the consequence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What on earth are you talking about? A rabbi or a priest are not elected officials charged with and agreed to act on behalf of the government of Kentucky. They can officiate a wedding, but they cannot grant a marriage license. Kentucky's restriction on marriage was changed because the SCOTUS ruled that the particular restriction is unconstitutional. Until Kentucky can get that decision overturned, that is indeed the law of the land. If Davis' ethics compels her to disobey that law, then hurray for her courage to stand up for her beliefs, but she's still legally in the wrong, and will have to suffer the consequence for it.

 

I'm not seeing how any of this contradicts what I said.  Yes, Davis is an elected official.  Elected officials, like Rabbis and Priests, are normally thought to have freedom of speech and conscience.  This need not protect them from getting in trouble with their employers (such as the State of Kentucky, or the Catholic Church, etc), but it in theory it should protect them from bullying from the Federal government.

 

But theory is not fact.  If Federal Courts tell an elected State official to do something it was not formerly her job to do, she now must do it or face the consequences of defying a "supreme" government authority.  The same thing applies if the highest courts give orders to marry gays to Priests and Rabbis and Minsters, who are authorized, pursuant to the laws of the State of Kentucky, to perform marriage ceremonies.  Or even if they are not authorized pursuant to the laws of Kentucky.  The Supreme Court can do anything the fuck it wants if nothing it does can be questioned, which is the attitude I am getting from the lot of you.

 

The attitude I am getting is that the Supreme Court is the SUPREME POWER and therefore we must approve of what it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not seeing how any of this contradicts what I said.  Yes, Davis is an elected official.  Elected officials, like Rabbis and Priests, are normally thought to have freedom of speech and conscience.  This need not protect them from getting in trouble with their employers (such as the State of Kentucky, or the Catholic Church, etc), but it in theory it should protect them from bullying from the Federal government.

 

It's my understanding that a government employee, elected or not, has very different rights than a private citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who else is there to be the final arbiter of what is right and proper?  A mythical being?

 

Many atheists, who were also liberals and moralists, used to believe in something called the "Natural Law".  I'm not sure how coherent this idea is.  It is not really my problem because it is not what I base my own moral principles or liberalism on; since I am not an atheist.   But liberals saw it as essential to democracy that the citizens NOT worship State Power absolutely, but respect some higher standard by which the actions of State Power could be judged.

 

To say that the Supreme Court, and not the People, are the final arbiters of what is right and proper, is ultimately to surrender democracy itself.  Without a set of moral principles, based on something OTHER than what Raw Power dictates, the people have no moral ammunition to question the acts of Brute Force and Raw Power.

 

To paraphrase the immortal words of Boy George, They are men without convictions / They are men who do not know / How to tell the contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...