Advice for Kim in Kentucky

PureX

Well-known member
This country is about individual rights... your 'pair bonding' beliefs are incompatible with that.... so is the institution of marriage we have in this country.
Pair-bonding is not a "belief", it's a universal human behavior. It's been going on since the dawn of mankind regardless of anyone's religious ideologies. And it will continue to do so. Religion didn't invent it and does not control it, even though you may desperately wish to believe it does, and want it to.

Which is why in real life, religious "marriages" will have to be an 'annex' of modern legal marriage (pair-bonding). Whether you like it or not. Because reality is what it is, and human beings are what they are, whether you like it or not.
 

HisServant

New member
Pair-bonding is not a "belief", it's a universal human behavior. It's been going on since the dawn of mankind regardless of anyone's religious ideologies. And it will continue to do so. Religion didn't invent it and does not control it, even though you may desperately wish to believe it does, and want it to.

Which is why in real life, religious "marriages" will have to be an 'annex' of modern legal marriage (pair-bonding). Whether you like it or not. Because reality is what it is, and human beings are what they are, whether you like it or not.

Polygamy and slavery have been going on since the dawn of time also.... they are just as valid as your point ( and blow a hole in your invented pair bonding nonsense)

Human beings are by default not monogamous.... the divorce rates and rampant cheating show that. This totally blows a whole in your theory that a 747 can fly through.

We need to get out of the marriage business..... all it does is cause suffering and poverty when the majority of them fail.

The Quakers were on to something.... they never got licenses and never had ceremonies... their marriages were by consent of the congregation.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
and yet no politicians are in jail yet for making sanctuary cities or making pot legal in direct opposition to federal law.

the judges only enforce their laws
abortion and same sex marriage

oh, I forgot

obamacare is now one of their laws
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The local admin in Kentucky has embarrassed itself by putting Kim in jail instead of firing her. I have no idea why--except to try to humiliate.

She can't be fired.

She's in jail for contempt of court. Fining her wouldn't work, because her supporters are willing to pay the fines.

The deputy clerks under Davis have all said they'd issue the licenses, except for the one deputy clerk who happens to be her son.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html
 

PureX

Well-known member
Polygamy and slavery have been going on since the dawn of time also.... they are just as valid as your point ( and blow a hole in your invented pair bonding nonsense)
"Valid" in what way? They have nothing to do with each other, nothing to do with pair-bonding, and little to do with marriage. So why you brought them us is a mystery.
Human beings are by default not monogamous….
That's not true. We are generally monogamous, just not generally for an entire lifetime. We pair-bond for long periods of time, usually based on a set of conditions, but eventually those conditions change, and the bond dissolves.
... the divorce rates and rampant cheating show that.
Is cheating "rampant"? I don't think it is, really. Most pair-bonds remain monogamous for most of the length of the bond. But that's not the length of one's life, in many cases.
We need to get out of the marriage business..... all it does is cause suffering and poverty when the majority of them fail.
Who's "we"? Humans will pair-bond. That's a fact. They always have and they probably always will. And as with all interactions between human beings, people need to be protected from each other. So like it or not, the government will have to protect people from their mates, on occasion. And that requires laws and oversight. There is no escaping these simple facts of reality.
The Quakers were on to something.... they never got licenses and never had ceremonies... their marriages were by consent of the congregation.
And their communities have laws and consequences for breaking those laws, just like any other society does. The only difference is that they are religious laws instead of secular laws.

If you want to live in a theocracy move to Iran. They'll be happy to give you a set of religious laws to follow, and make you pay the consequences if your don't.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
it is their law

The supreme court does not get to pass laws.

In order for it to get to the supreme court somebody would have had to have been convicted of breaking a state or federal law.

It would go to the supreme court when they appealed their conviction.

Most of the sates' law says same sex marriage is illegal.

So once again, I ask, how did this get to the supreme court?

Did somebody get convicted of performing an illegal same sex marriage and appeal it?

If not, then how did this get to the supreme court?
 

PureX

Well-known member
She can't be fired.

She's in jail for contempt of court. Fining her wouldn't work, because her supporters are willing to pay the fines.

The deputy clerks under Davis have all said they'd issue the licenses, except for the one deputy clerk who happens to be her son.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html
In the end this will be a good thing, because it will force communities to set guidelines for these clerks so they can be fired when they don't follow them. Sadly, people these days don't understand or respect their responsibility to their communities unless they are written down and enforced by law.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic



  • A quip from the dissenting judges.

    In four separate dissents, the court's conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court usurped a power that belongs to the people.

    Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, "Just who do we think we are?"


    My question remains unanswered.

    I'll rephrase it.

    By what unlawful means was it put into the hands of the supreme court?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
In the end this will be a good thing, because it will force communities to set guidelines for these clerks so they can be fired when they don't follow them. Sadly, people these days don't understand or respect their responsibility to their communities unless they are written down and enforced by law.

Rowan County issued a marriage license to William Smith Jr. and James Yates this morning.
 

PureX

Well-known member
By what unlawful means was it put into the hands of the supreme court?
By the horrible principal of democratic rule: that the majority of the court's justices determined it should be so. If you really hate democracy this much, perhaps you should become a citizen of some other country, where democratic principals are ignored. Of course, they may not accept your divine rule, there, either.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
before
two guys were living together
after
two guys are living together
and
kim is in jail
because
she didn't approve it
 
Top