Equality of marriage and love

The Black Oil

Cruz launched straight into the liberal fascism narrative t'other day when confronted by Ellen Page.

This chap usually posts interesting stuff from the archives. Same old whinge about the media that we heard during this year's campaign.

https://twitter.com/electionlit/status/638053559674798080

Daith

When the Marriage Bill starts going through the Dáil we are going to hear this stuff too.

I wonder if Mattie will bake more cupcakes

Penn

Gintonious wrote: »

The way she says "under gods authority" really boiled my blood.

They should really limit gods to only being able to serve 4 year terms, with a maximum of 2 terms, like how they do the Presidency.

Nodin

"A controversial US court clerk who has cited “God’s law” while refusing to issue same-sex marriages licenses has has herself been married four times, it has been revealed.

“I am not perfect,” Davis said. “No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and the Word of God.”

"For Ermold and Moore, the developments in recent days still came as a surprise. The people in Moreland were “fairly nice”, said Moore. “We’re just finding out the government is a little different.”
The decision to reject their request for a license burned the couple deeply, as Moore and Ermold supported Davis’s election bid last November.
“If we had known [how she’d respond to their license requiest] we wouldn’t have voted for her,” said Ermold. “She ran on a Democratic ticket, but clearly she’s not Democratic.”

"The Christian non-profit group representing Davis, Liberty Counsel, posted on Facebook decrying the plaintiffs who filed suit against Davis as “militant homosexuals who … will be on her front step FORCING her to choose between obeying Scripture or going to jail”.
While a strong contingent turned out in support of Davis, a crowdfunding campaign the clerk apparently launched this week has drawn little support: as of early Wednesday, it has raised $0. "
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-divorced-three-times?CMP=fb_gu
Looks like shes onto a winner.

Them militant gays, wanting their legal entitlements......it was bad enough when the coloureds started up with that nonsense....

Peregrinus

Nodin wrote: »

While a strong contingent turned out in support of Davis, a crowdfunding campaign the clerk apparently launched this week has drawn little support: as of early Wednesday, it has raised $0.

Ooh! Ooh! It's up to $1 now!

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ooh! Ooh! It's up to $1 now!

She doesn't need crowdfunding, she has a republican senator backing her

Peregrinus

Backing her with cold, hard cash?

Let's face it, she has lawyers' bills to pay. Plus, she's going to be unemployed fairly soon.

The Randy Riverbeast

Nodin wrote: »

"A controversial US court clerk who has cited “God’s law” while refusing to issue same-sex marriages licenses has has herself been married four times, it has been revealed.

“I am not perfect,” Davis said. “No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and the Word of God.”

"For Ermold and Moore, the developments in recent days still came as a surprise. The people in Moreland were “fairly nice”, said Moore. “We’re just finding out the government is a little different.”
The decision to reject their request for a license burned the couple deeply, as Moore and Ermold supported Davis’s election bid last November.
“If we had known [how she’d respond to their license requiest] we wouldn’t have voted for her,” said Ermold. “She ran on a Democratic ticket, but clearly she’s not Democratic.”

"The Christian non-profit group representing Davis, Liberty Counsel, posted on Facebook decrying the plaintiffs who filed suit against Davis as “militant homosexuals who … will be on her front step FORCING her to choose between obeying Scripture or going to jail”.
While a strong contingent turned out in support of Davis, a crowdfunding campaign the clerk apparently launched this week has drawn little support: as of early Wednesday, it has raised $0. "
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-divorced-three-times?CMP=fb_gu
Looks like shes onto a winner.

Them militant gays, wanting their legal entitlements......it was bad enough when the coloureds started up with that nonsense....

Which part of the scripture says thou must not supply marriage licenses when the state allows 2 people of the same gender to get married?

robindch

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Which part of the scripture says thou must not supply marriage licenses when the state allows 2 people of the same gender to get married?

It's right there beside the bit that discusses abortion and masturbation.

The Black Oil

Has anyone sent memo to this Davis character? Along the lines of, y'know - 'hey, this is not about you'?

robindch

The Black Oil wrote: »

Has anyone sent memo to this Davis character?

Seems Ms Davis values marriage so highly that she's had four herself.

The fail is strong in this one.

Frank Bullitt

Here is Mike Huckabee making some white noise about the issue. What a moron.

The Black Oil

He always makes self-serving statements.

Absolam

The Black Oil wrote: »

He always makes self-serving statements.

I think he's a politician.......

Peregrinus

To my lasting regret, the Kim Davis crowdfunding campaign has been pulled - whether by her, or by the hosts Indiegogo, is not clear. The Google cache tells me that it got up to at least $92.00 (out of a target of $75,000) before being pulled.

Nodin

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Which part of the scripture says thou must not supply marriage licenses when the state allows 2 people of the same gender to get married?

It's probably some bit where you have to read it in context rather than literally, or possibly the other way round, depending.

Peregrinus

Actually, Davis is not saying that the State shouldn’t provide marriage licences to same-sex couples. (At least, she’s not saying that in her legal proceedings. What she says about this when she’s among friends is another matter, but we can only conjecture about that.) What she is saying is that the State shouldn’t compel her to provide marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Bit of background:

Davis is the County Clerk. That’s a bit like the county manager in Ireland; she’s the chief executive of the county government. Issuing marriage licences is one of the things she does but it’s, like, half of one per cent of the business of her office. Or less.

When she was elected to the post, natch, she didn’t have to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples; Kentucky law didn’t allow for this.

Then, as we all know, a couple of months back the US Supreme Court ruled that “equal protection” clause in the US Constitution required the states to recognise same-sex marriages on the same basis as opposite-sex marriages. In response, the Governor of Kentucky issued an order telling county clerks to issue same-sex marriage licences. He issued a second order to the appropriate Kentucky government department to prepare and circulate new licence forms which use gender-neutral language.

Davis’s argument in court is that this was improper. Kentucky marriage laws don’t allow for same-sex marriage, and what the Governor should have done was to call on the Kentucky legislature to pass a new or amended marriage law to accommodate same-sex marriage, in compliance with the constitutional requirement. This isn’t something, she argues, that he can properly do by adminstrative action alone; Kentucky legislation needs to come into line with the US Constitution.

And, she also says, what he has done is not just an impropriety; it’s an impropriety which imposes a substantial burden on her religious beliefs.

The outcome she wants is for Kentucky to amend its marriage laws so that they explicitly provide for marriage on a sex neutral basis and (she hopes) make other changes which will accommodate the tender consciences of people like herself. Right now, she’s the only person in Rowan County who can issue marriage licences; she hopes for an amended marriage statute which will say that, if she can’t issue them for conscientious reasons, then some other official can. Or, perhaps, a marriage statute which just appoints a range of county officials, any or all of whom can issue marriage licences in any circumstances. People would then be able to get a marriage licence in Rowan County without having to get it from Kim Davis. Problem solved.

She asked the Supreme Court for a stay on the injunction already issued, which tells her to issue marriage licences to the couples who have been denied. Her argument was that instead of telling her to issue the marriage licences, the federal courts should tell the Kentucky governor and legislature to amend the law so she doesn’t have to. The Supreme Court told her to sod off.

As far as I can see, this is a fight she could never have won, for a couple of reasons.

First, she’s complaining about the actions of the Governor of Kentucky (and, perhaps, the inactions of the Kentucky legislature) but the present proceedings are between five couples who want marriage licences, and a county clerk who is refusing to issue them. The Governor and legislature of Kentucky are not before the court.

Secondly, even if she somehow managed to have them joined in the proceedings, the Supreme Court is not going to tell the Governor of Kentucky and the Kentucky legislature what laws they should write. Separation of powers, and all that - writing laws is the business of legislatures, not courts. If the legislature writes a law that is repugnant to the Constitution, the courts will strike it down. But they won’t do the legislature’s job for them, and write the laws in the first place.

Her campaign is basically a political one. She wants Kentucky to legislate in a way that reconciles her conscientious objections with the right of couples to get marriage licences. There might be an argument, based on some recent US Supreme Court decisions, that she has a constitutional right to some kind of accommodation for her conscience. It’s not a strong argument, I think, but it’s there. But this isn’t really a case that raises that issue in a way the court will address. The lobby groups who are undoubtedly behind her stance and her legal proceedings should have chosen more carefully.

There is an easy way for Davis to protect her conscience, which is to resign from an office whose duties she finds it offensive to discharge. That would probably be the most decent and dignified thing she could do. It might also keep her out of jail.

Daith

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is an easy way for Davis to protect her conscience, which is to resign from an office whose duties she finds it offensive to discharge. That would probably be the most decent and dignified thing she could do. It might also keep her out of jail.

I think she knows this though. I think she wants to go out as martyr to her cause. Or perhaps others have been whispering this to her and she's just being played.

As I said this will be brought back up in Ireland. I think I've hated the term "religious freedom" ever since the Seanad debate on Civil Partnership. Where someone (maybe Ronan) compared performing a civil partnership with an abortion in terms of religious freedom.

Peregrinus

Daith wrote: »

I think she knows this though. I think she wants to go out as martyr to her cause. Or perhaps others have been whispering this to her and she's just being played.

The latter, I fear. From what I read I don't think she's all that bright, or all that resilient.

Daith wrote: »

As I said this will be brought back up in Ireland. I think I've hated the term "religious freedom" ever since the Seanad debate on Civil Partnership. Where someone (maybe Ronan) compared performing a civil partnership with an abortion in terms of religious freedom.

Time will tell. It's unlikely to arise in this exact form, since our tradition of government doesn't often identify an individual much below the level of a government minister who is given sole legal authority over any particular government function. If, hypothetically, there were somebody in the HSE who objected to issuing marriage registration forms to same-sex couples, my guess is that the HSE would simply steer this work towards another staff member. Same-sex couples wishing to marry would not be inconvenienced, and somebody would be denied the opportunity of grandstanding.

The draft Bill explicitly provides that religious solemnisers are not obliged to celebrate forms of marriage that they don't recognise. There is no similar exemption for humanist celebrants but, then, it's unlikely that the HAI would commission a celebrant who declined to celebrate same-sex marriages. And there is no exemption for civil celebrants. If a civil celebrant objects, I suspect that will be dealt with as an employment matter by the HSE.

So, my guess is that the most likely place this will end up in is the employment tribunals, with a civil celebrant objecting to being disciplined and/or sidelined in their career for refusing to celebrate same-sex weddings. But no actual gays will be hurt in the making of this movie.

Daith

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, my guess is that the most likely place this will end up in is the employment tribunals, with a civil celebrant objecting to being disciplined and/or sidelined in their career for refusing to celebrate same-sex weddings. But no actual gays will be hurt in the making of this movie.

Oh, I think this will be the case but what I meant was we will hear about religious freedom from people like Ronan, Fidelma, etc as the bill is being debated.

I think once it's passed we won't hear too much about it from the civil marriage aspect. We may hear about from business like that print shop who refused to print civil partnership cards though.

Peregrinus

Daith wrote: »

Oh, I think this will be the case but what I meant was we will hear about religious freedom from people like Ronan, Fidelma, etc as the bill is being debated.

Oh, right. Yeah, we will. But be strong. The moment will pass quickly enough. And given that the outcome will be actual same-sex marriages being celebrated, I think we can put up with the inevitability of listening to this stuff in order to reach that point.

Daith wrote: »

I think once it's passed we won't hear too much about it from the civil marriage aspect. We may hear about from business like that print shop who refused to print civil partnership cards though.

Nodin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, Davis (..............)jail.

Correct me if I'm wrong now, but isn't she just responsible for issuing a licence, not actually carrying out the marriage?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, my guess is that the most likely place this will end up in is the employment tribunals, with a civil celebrant objecting to being disciplined and/or sidelined in their career for refusing to celebrate same-sex weddings. But no actual gays will be hurt in the making of this movie.

As has happened in the UK...

MrP

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong now, but isn't she just responsible for issuing a licence, not actually carrying out the marriage?

Yeah. She has the equivalent job, kind of, to the person that posts you your driving licence after you have passed your test. They aren't endorsing your skill as a driver, and posting the licence does not, IMO, indicate that they have any particular feeling about your skill as a driver, it merely indicates that you have performed the legally necessary steps to secure a driving licence.

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. She has the equivalent job, kind of, to the person that posts you your driving licence after you have passed your test. They aren't endorsing your skill as a driver, and posting the licence does not, IMO, indicate that they have any particular feeling about your skill as a driver, it merely indicates that you have performed the legally necessary steps to secure a driving licence.

MrP

Can't see she has much leg to stand on then. Shes not marrying them, and has no say in it, all she's doing is certifying a fact. She'd seem to be wanting to deny a legal reality, as opposed to being forced to facilitate it.

robindch

An organization specializing in calculating the financial effects of LGBT peeps has estimated that they no account for around 13% of Irish tourism, or around €850 million euro.

http://www.thejournal.ie/lgbt-tourism-2308418-Sep2015/

Keep 'em coming, I say.(*)




(*) Pun not intentional.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her campaign is basically a political one.

And, it seems, an increasingly hypocritical one too. Court documents unearthed by US News indicate that she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband in 1994. They were fathered by her third husband, whom she divorced in 2008, but adopted by her second, whom she divorced in 2006. She is now married to a fourth man and is reported to have converted to christianity only four years ago.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

And, it seems, an increasingly hypocritical one too. Court documents unearthed by US News indicate that she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband in 1994. They were fathered by her third husband, whom she divorced in 2008, but adopted by her second, whom she divorced in 2006. She is now married to a fourth man and is reported to have converted to christianity only four years ago.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

Converts are the worst.

MrP

jobbridge4life

Peregrinus wrote: »

That would probably be the most decent and dignified thing she could do. It might also keep her out of jail.

And deprive herself of the chance of achieving her goal? Hardly.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

And, it seems, an increasingly hypocritical one too. Court documents unearthed by US News indicate that she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband in 1994. They were fathered by her third husband, whom she divorced in 2008, but adopted by her second, whom she divorced in 2006. She is now married to a fourth man and is reported to have converted to christianity only four years ago.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

That now, is feckin confusin. Also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL7ZjFp1Z5s

"Kentucky clerk ordered to jail for refusing to issue gay marriage license"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html