Equality of marriage and love

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I've never quite understood the fascination with anal sex - can it all really derive from their fear of violating ritual purity? At times, the emotions it brings up verge on the disturbing.

Anal sex between men only though....man on woman, woman on man gets ne'er a mention.

StonyIron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on. There are nations without sodomy?

Just ones that like to pretend they don't.

robindch

Kim Davis -- the story that keeps on giving. Last week, her lawyer compared her to a jew living in Nazi Germany:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kim-davis-lawyer-says-shes-just-jew-living-nazi-germany

And this week, she - probably wisely - declined an offer from a far-right group named the "Oath Keepers" who showed up offering to provide her with an armed "security detail" to prevent her from being arrested again:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-send-armed-guards-protect-kim-davis-us-marshals
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kim-davis-declines-oath-keepers-offer-armed-guard

Links234

That is ****ing terrifying.

oscarBravo

I've seen the Oath Keepers crop up before. Those are some scary mofos. The fact that their country permits them to exist is a serious design flaw.

The Randy Riverbeast

How exactly would they plan on preventing her arrest? Shoot the police?

Their comments sound like something a terrorist organisation would come out with.

Links234

Just look at those Bundy ranch psychos, the police backed off. Right wing Christian terrorists get a lot of leeway

The Black Oil

Oath Keepers - boys with toys.

Nodin

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

How exactly would they plan on preventing her arrest? Shoot the police?

Their comments sound like something a terrorist organisation would come out with.

No, they're clearly white Christians and thus can pose no danger to anyone.

oscarBravo

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html

She's backed down. Kinda sorta.

Frank Bullitt

Not interested in going back to jail so.

Daith

What happens when she goes on vacation before all this? Nobody could get married? Very odd system.

Penn

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html

She's backed down. Kinda sorta.

"Today, Kim Davis remains the bravest woman in America," Mihet said. "She has not compromised her conscience, she has not compromised her faith and she has not quit serving the people of Rowan County that she loves very much."

Apart from the gays, obviously.

robindch

Putin (2013, repeated recently): "If Gay People Marry, Russians Will Stop Having Children"
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/vladimir_putin_if_gay_people_marry_russians_will_stop_having_children

Elton John: I'd like to meet Putin
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34235739

Putin: Hey, Elton, hi, Vlad here. How ya doin'?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34260134

jobbridge4life

robindch wrote: »

Putin (2013, repeated recently): "If Gay People Marry, Russians Will Stop Having Children"
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/vladimir_putin_if_gay_people_marry_russians_will_stop_having_children

Elton John: I'd like to meet Putin
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34235739

Putin: Hey, Elton, hi, Vlad here. How ya doin'?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34260134

I like Elton... he is an amazing musical talent and a fantastic entertainer... he is also a great drama queen good for the odd laugh/bitchy gossip... but I don't know if he is the best person to put forward to argue the case for gay rights in Russia. If anything does come of this I just hope it is positive.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
She's backed down. Kinda sorta.

I think the legal situation here is a bit like Alabama in the 1960's when the state governor had a law to prevent blacks from attending the white college. But a federal law had already been passed giving equal access. The State governor Wallace had his state troopers out to enforce his state law, but President Kennedy took control of the National Guard and instructed them to enforce the federal law.
In the same way, Kim Davis has now been trumped by someone invoking federal authority.
According to the article above..

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that Kentucky law might allow for a deputy's signature to be valid on a marriage license, even without the clerk's consent. But if the documents are altered to remove Davis' name and title, a court may have to rule on their validity...


The marriage license that the couple received said "pursuant to federal court order" on it, and instead of listing Davis' name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.
David said Monday that any such licenses "will not issued or authorized by me." Her work-around is not to sign them but not interfere with her deputies who do give them out.
"(U.S. District Judge David Bunning) indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage licenses even though he was not certain of their validity," Davis said. "I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid."

So these licenses get their legitimacy from a higher authority than the county clerk, which is from US federal law via a court order.
That exact wording will probably change again, and these current licenses might even become valuable collector's items in the future. Get one quick!

robindch

Mr Huckabee, a frequent visitor to the Republican Fruitcakes thread, has asked Pope Frank to issue Mrs-Mrs-Mrs-Mrs Davis a diplomatic passport from the Vatican: (*)

http://religionlo.com/huckabee-urges-pope-to-give-kim-davis-a-diplomatic-passport-so-she-can-finally-escape-evil-u-s-law/

If she gets it, might some people call her The Undiplomatic Bag?(**)






(*) This is a joke.
(**) This isn't.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Putin: Hey, Elton, hi, Vlad here. How ya doin'?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34260134

Dmitri Peskov - Putin's spokesman and, famously, owner of a watch five times his annual salary and more expensive than a townhouse in Dalkey - has denied that Putin spoke with Elton John:

http://www.rt.com/news/315401-elton-john-putin-lgbt/

Mustachio'd Porn Star wrote:

I don’t know who Sir Elton talked with, but I can responsibly say that Vladimir Putin has not spoken to Sir Elton John, [...] if the president receives an indication that Elton John wants to talk, he is open to discussing any societal problems and issues [...] Putin is always ready to explain how things really are

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-laws-to-be-considered-by-cabinet-today-1.2353661

Laws to allow for same sex marriage are to be considered by Cabinet this morning.

The Marriage Bill, which will legislate for the outcome of the referendum in May, will be brought by the Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald.

A Department of Justice spokesman said the Government was hopeful the legislation could be enacted speedily.

He said it was the belief of the Minister that the first same sex marriages could take place by November.

There will be some opposition to its enactment in the Dáil and the Seanad.

Mattie McGrath TD and Senators Jim Walsh and Ronán Mullen argued against the referendum in May.

They are due to table amendments over the coming weeks.

The last dying breath of 1950's catholic Ireland.....

Penn

It will protect the right of solemnisers not to have to conduct a ceremony that goes against their religious ethos.

Mattie McGrath TD and Senators Jim Walsh and Ronán Mullen argued against the referendum in May.
They are due to table amendments over the coming weeks.

This is the bit that worries me. Does "solemnisers" extend to civil registrars? I have absolutely no objection to religious organisations' right to not conduct same-sex marriages, but if it extends to civil registrars and their religious beliefs, are we going to end up with some being able to refuse to marry such couples, a la Kim "My previous marriages don't count because God forgave me" Davis, particularly with a likely push from Jim "I have no problem with fairies" Walsh and Ronán "Stop calling me Briefcase Wanker, I'm not carrying a briefcase" Mullen?

Daith

Penn wrote: »

This is the bit that worries me. Does "solemnisers" extend to civil registrars? I have absolutely no objection to religious organisations' right to not conduct same-sex marriages, but if it extends to civil registrars and their religious beliefs, are we going to end up with some being able to refuse to marry such couples, a la Kim "My previous marriages don't count because God forgave me" Davis, particularly with a likely push from Jim "I have no problem with fairies" Walsh and Ronán "Stop calling me Briefcase Wanker, I'm not carrying a briefcase" Mullen?

Ah, they tabled the same amendments for Civil Partnerships too. Can't see it getting anywhere.

Religious bodies are exempt anyway.

Absolam

The draft published by the Justice Dept had the text:

Head 7
: Religious solemnisers not obliged to perform marriages.
Provide that:
7._
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as obliging:
(a) a religious body, within the meaning of section 45 of the Act of 2004, to
recognise a particular form of marriage ceremony for the purposes of section 51(3(c) of that Act; or
(b) a registered solemniser, who is registered in the Register of Solemnisers on behalf of a religious body, to solemnise a marriage in accordance with a
form of ceremony which is not recognised by that religious body.

so if the current form follows the same formula, it would only be solemnisers who are specifically registered on behalf of a religious body who would be excluded from the obligation.

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

so if the current form follows the same formula, it would only be solemnisers who are specifically registered on behalf of a religious body who would be excluded from the obligation.

Ah, well in that case that's completely fine, I'd have no issues with that. Can still see Walsh & Mullen (and probably Healy Eames) using the Kim Davis thing to try and force in their conscience clause sh*te though.

Cabaal

Penn wrote: »

Ah, well in that case that's completely fine, I'd have no issues with that. Can still see Walsh & Mullen (and probably Healy Eames) using the Kim Davis thing to try and force in their conscience clause sh*te though.

I don't think Kim's situation can apply to Ireland,
In Ireland if people refuse to do a marriage cert on religious grounds they can just be removed or sacked from the position, they are not elected into the position like Kim was.

recedite

Daith wrote: »

Religious bodies are exempt anyway.

Yes, but the question is; will individual civil registrars in the registry office in Ireland be allowed to exempt themselves? Interesting question.
Not the same as the Kim Davis thing though, where there were no other options (until recently) except to get the license issued through the one particular person.

Penn

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't think Kim's situation can apply to Ireland,
In Ireland if people refuse to do a marriage cert on religious grounds they can just be removed or sacked from the position, they are not elected into the position like Kim was.

Agreed, but I see it as being held up as a possible example which will be used by the No side to fight for their "conscience clause".

Cabaal

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, but I see it as being held up as a possible example which will be used by the No side to fight for their "conscience clause".

Yeah but its a nonsense argument, its like saying you hate black people so you don't want to serve black people. Or you hate Polish so you shouldn't have to deal with Polish people.

It'll been seen for exactly what it is, hatred.

Daith

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the question is; will individual civil registrars in the registry office in Ireland be allowed to exempt themselves? Interesting question.
Not the same as the Kim Davis thing though, where there were no other options (until recently) except to get the license issued through the one particular person.

The same issue was raised by Mullen with Civil Partnerships. There was an analogy between a person performing and abortion(!) and a person performing a civil partnership.

It never came to pass just Ronan filibustering. Public officials will still be expected to follow the law of the land. I suspect you may get some registrar asking another registar to perform the ceremony but it won't affect anyone really.

Iona can rehash this http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=889

and light reading

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/civil-partnership-bill-passed-despite-heated-exchanges-in-seanad-124548.html

We will hear about this but it will sail through the Dail and the Seanad. Ronan will get get his say and that will be that.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the question is; will individual civil registrars in the registry office in Ireland be allowed to exempt themselves? Interesting question.

Not according to the proposed legislation. If they don't like it, they can quit.

That said, I would expect the aforementioned oxygen wasters senators to table an amendment to allow anyone to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies, and I would also expect said amendment to be roundly shot down.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

Not according to the proposed legislation. If they don't like it, they can quit.

That said, I would expect the aforementioned oxygen wasters senators to table an amendment to allow anyone to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies, and I would also expect said amendment to be roundly shot down.

I wonder if I can get to the Seanad for this debate. Be nice to see Ronan's last grasp of breath.