(06-28-2015, 07:53 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 07:38 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]If my husband drops dead I'm gonna marry a straight woman just for the government benefits and get dick on the side. It sounds like a good plan to me.
O.K. guess I am a little slow.....but what benefits would you get by marrying a straight woman that you don't receive now in your marital status (married to a man)? Are you fantasizing about a threesome or changing your sex? I hope you have not had a recent head injury.....
Go back and read the first 5 words of Sallys post.
(06-28-2015, 08:15 PM)FAHQTOO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 07:53 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 07:38 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]If my husband drops dead I'm gonna marry a straight woman just for the government benefits and get dick on the side. It sounds like a good plan to me.
O.K. guess I am a little slow.....but what benefits would you get by marrying a straight woman that you don't receive now in your marital status (married to a man)? Are you fantasizing about a threesome or changing your sex? I hope you have not had a recent head injury.....
Go back and read the first 5 words of Sallys post.
well, it took awhile, but after reading it a million times, i finally understood...I am feeling like a dumbass right about now.......Thanks. F2.
(06-28-2015, 12:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree Jimbone. I've read the full Supreme Court Opinion and Dissenting Opinions.
Thomas' dissenting opinion starts on page 78 of the linked PDF.
When you take out the specific examples Thomas gave to make his point about dignity, you alter the context of that paragraph and his dissent -- whether or not you agree with his contention that a denial of equal marriage rights is unrelated to the Constitution, unrelated to dignity, and unrelated to liberty.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf
To me, the whole crux of the Thomas dissent, was that due process as defined by the Constitution was not being applied properly. He went on at some length about why that was, and how liberty is the key point in showing how it was not.
His final point about dignity was a direct response to the majority opinion making it an issue. The tie in between dignity and liberty is made in his point that they are both to be protected from the state - and not provided by it. His examples aside, his point about dignity is valid - and the examples don't invalidate or cloud his dissent IMO.
Different viewpoints, different reading of the dissent. It's all good.
(06-28-2015, 09:03 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 08:15 PM)FAHQTOO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 07:53 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2015, 07:38 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]If my husband drops dead I'm gonna marry a straight woman just for the government benefits and get dick on the side. It sounds like a good plan to me.
O.K. guess I am a little slow.....but what benefits would you get by marrying a straight woman that you don't receive now in your marital status (married to a man)? Are you fantasizing about a threesome or changing your sex? I hope you have not had a recent head injury.....
Go back and read the first 5 words of Sallys post.
well, it took awhile, but after reading it a million times, i finally understood...I am feeling like a dumbass right about now.......Thanks. F2.
Seems most of the politicians and government employees who oppose same-sex marriage have moved forward in respecting the new law. But, not all of them.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Thursday on behalf of two homosexual and two heterosexual couples, all of whom were turned down when they tried to get marriage licenses from Davis’ office this week.
Davis has said that her religious beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided not to issue marriage licenses to any type of couple – straight or gay.
The clerks have argued that if they issue a license to no one, they cannot be accused of discrimination. Kentucky state law allows adult couples seeking marriage licenses to get them from any county. If a marriage involves minors, however, they must get their license in the county where they live.
The four couples who filed suit say that because they live, work, vote and pay taxes in Rowan County, they have a right to file for a marriage license there.
In the lawsuit, ACLU legal director William Sharp wrote that Davis' religious conviction "is not a compelling, important or legitimate government interest."
One of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, Laura Landenwich, wrote that Davis "has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs."
Full story:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/03/ken...-licenses/
Ugh. Some people just wanna start problems.
I've actually philosophically pondered about how nice it must be to have that as a job. You get to hand out marriage licenses all day long. I think in my county, a really high percentage of those people are going to be happy. You get to make people happy all day long. That's like a step below working for publisher's clearing house, handing out the checks. Compared to working at the DMV, where everyone's mad, or teachers, where everyone is young, stupid, and mad... giving out marriage licenses sounds like a pretty fun gig. And people like that have to go out and make it a mission to ruin everyone's day for some kinda political statement. Sigh.
That's a cool way of looking at the job Cutz, and I agree with your general sentiment (for the second time today
).
Seriously.....I respect the rights of religious institutions, private educational institutions, and non-governmental businesses to refuse services to certain people, so long as there is no state or local law prohibiting the specific discrimination. It's ignorant personal and business policy, IMO, but I respect their rights nonetheless.
However, the governmental court clerks who refuse to respect the law and perform their license-issuing duties -- due to their personal religious beliefs or for any other reason -- should be terminated immediately and replaced with law-abiding citizens who can do the effin' job. They can crusade against gays and marriage equality on their own time.
I agree they need to do their jobs. If the Supreme Court was ordering that gay people must be allowed to marry in churches, I'd join along in the protest. But they're not. They're not infringing on religious practice at all, they're just allowing gay couples the same legal status as they allow straight couples. Big whoop. Get over yourself and print the document.
With all the talk of sanctuary cities, what do you think the backlash would be if a place like Little Rock or Provo declared themselves a sanctuary city from gay marriage, and refused to follow the law?
Discuss.
What happens? The government blackmails them and takes away highway funding.
How 'bout plural marriage?
(07-09-2015, 02:56 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]What happens? The government blackmails them and takes away highway funding.
Should they do that for sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants?
(07-09-2015, 03:01 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2015, 02:56 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]What happens? The government blackmails them and takes away highway funding.
Should they do that for sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants?
Sanctuary cities get what they deserve. But will try and blame others for their own folly.
(07-03-2015, 07:24 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]One of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, Laura Landenwich, wrote ". . . but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose . . . "
Isn't this the EXACT argument that the folks who demand that the immigration laws be enforced are using, too?
(07-09-2015, 02:42 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]With all the talk of sanctuary cities, what do you think the backlash would be if a place like Little Rock or Provo declared themselves a sanctuary city from gay marriage, and refused to follow the law?
Discuss.
I had never heard the term "sanctuary city" until this week.
(07-09-2015, 03:00 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]How 'bout plural marriage?
Or in Little Rock marrying your cousin?
(06-28-2015, 09:03 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]well, it took awhile, but after reading it a million times, i finally understood...I am feeling like a dumbass right about now.......Thanks. F2.
Don't you ever feel like a dumbass BH. You are a retired Flight Attendant, and you have been through some stuff in your life. Oral Roberts tried to hump your leg on a flight once. Sally can talk cryptically sometimes, it's not always as clear cut as her husband dropping dead, maybe she meant it in another way. We don't know.
Ignore F2 if she tries to take the speck out your eye when she has a log in her own.
(07-09-2015, 03:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2015, 03:00 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]How 'bout plural marriage?
Or in Little Rock marrying your cousin?
You can marry your second cousin in Arkansas.
You can marry your first cousin in Australia . . . but not if you're Catholic.
I now want to know . . . can gays marry their cousins . . . first or once removed?
If they can, shouldn't straights be allowed to, too?
Equality in marriage . . .