The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

The good news is that Kim Davis has called for The Oath Keepers to take their elementary school understanding of the Constitution elsewhere and not show up in Rowan County to "protect" her.

The bad news is that Kim Davis' lawyers have asked the court to allow her to continue to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples while her appeal winds it's way through the system.

Her lawyers used the ballsy reasoning that Judge Bunning's initial order only applied to the couples that sued her and that he violated her right to due process when he expanded his injunction to include all couples legally able to marry. Therefore, she should still be able to not issue marriage licenses because the couples who were originally harmed now have their marriage licenses.

And the worst news is that Davis has shown up to work this morning, but issued the following statement:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/pS9wOIM.png)

It's exceptionally odd that someone who is clearly concerned about the "authority" and "authorization" that goes with her position as county clerk doesn't understand that she doesn't have the authority or authorization to alter what the state legislature has said goes on the marriage licenses.

Oh, she's one to talk of tolerance and love.

It occurs to me that we already have an example of a secular state that has spent decades accommodating religious extremists; socially, legally and politically.

It's Israel.

If we don't stop driving down this road, that's where we'll be in the not too distant future. Christians in gated communities "colonizing for Christ" in majority-minority areas, managing their own internal legal system within their communities, and emerging to protest and throw rocks and firebombs at unbelievers...

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Oh, she's one to talk of tolerance and love.

That part made my head explode. I think she's full on delusional at this point or simply has no empathy for anyone who does not share her very specific beliefs.

Kehama wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Oh, she's one to talk of tolerance and love.

That part made my head explode. I think she's full on delusional at this point or simply has no empathy for anyone who does not share her very specific beliefs.

Well, back up a sec. Let's use some empathy of our own here.

If *I* was in Davis' shoes, I might have trouble drumming up some empathy for others who are on the same side of the issue as the hordes of people spewing loud and public vitriol in my direction.

I'm not saying she's right, I'm saying that it's difficult to be empathic in the face of a screaming torrent of abuse, even if that torrent is perfectly justified.

Jonman wrote:
Kehama wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Oh, she's one to talk of tolerance and love.

That part made my head explode. I think she's full on delusional at this point or simply has no empathy for anyone who does not share her very specific beliefs.

Well, back up a sec. Let's use some empathy of our own here.

If *I* was in Davis' shoes, I might have trouble drumming up some empathy for others who are on the same side of the issue as the hordes of people spewing loud and public vitriol in my direction.

I'm not saying she's right, I'm saying that it's difficult to be empathic in the face of a screaming torrent of abuse, even if that torrent is perfectly justified.

If we're going to pull out the empathy game, she still loses. This all begins with her going on a power trip to ignore the law specifically so she can treat some people like they have no rights. This began with her having no empathy for anyone who doesn't share her beliefs. The fact that she can't come up with any now due to factors that stemmed from that original coldness isn't worth examining.

Jonman wrote:
Kehama wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Oh, she's one to talk of tolerance and love.

That part made my head explode. I think she's full on delusional at this point or simply has no empathy for anyone who does not share her very specific beliefs.

Well, back up a sec. Let's use some empathy of our own here.

If *I* was in Davis' shoes, I might have trouble drumming up some empathy for others who are on the same side of the issue as the hordes of people spewing loud and public vitriol in my direction.

I'm not saying she's right, I'm saying that it's difficult to be empathic in the face of a screaming torrent of abuse, even if that torrent is perfectly justified.

She put herself in the situation by not being empathic in the first place.

Exactly. You're both pointing out that she lacked empathy in the first place, so expecting her to find it now, after the birds have come home to roost, is a losing proposition.

"Are we not a big enough, a loving enough, a tolerant enough state to find a way to accommodate my deeply held religious convictions?"

Considering those involve denying the civil rights and deeply held convictions of others, her narcissism runs pretty deep.

Perhaps, but the problem is the extremely vocal minority of religious conservatives. They're the proverbial turd in the punch bow that ruins it for everyone else.

Posted this in the wrong thread.
Was watching the Marco Runway Show. I thought the end was hilarious.
Spoiled because it is NSFW

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108404739/Marcos%20Kim%20Davis%20Shirt.JPG)

If don't know who Marco is he does LGBT fashion shows.

I gotta say, I'm still not tired of these "still did their job" memes

IMAGE(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12004059_10156043007665023_4237743701145831792_n.jpg?oh=ea12364cae09727117beb07b752258c7&oe=566E3D3F)

Would that be the bisexual Freddie Mercury? I mean I don't know what his tastes in women were but they may have had fat bottoms

onewild wrote:

Would that be the bisexual Freddie Mercury? I mean I don't know what his tastes in women were but they may have had fat bottoms

Mary Austin looks pretty wispy, but Barbara Valentin seems curvy. So that image macro maaaaay not be the most accurate

IMAGE(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12032018_10153092867141931_3589874094132371823_n.jpg?oh=18accbdb095c13ecd32dbd6d455a3527&oe=5698C319)

That's better

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just took a giant, steamy dump on Davis' request for an injunction while her appeal is being considered. The injunction would have allowed her to not issue marriage licenses while her appeal wormed its way through the system.

Now that they've removed her name from the license and she's not being forced to issue them personally, what's her beef?

Kehama wrote:

Now that they've removed her name from the license and she's not being forced to issue them personally, what's her beef?

Something something persecution.

At no time has this woman had or made a rational objection based on religious beliefs, but that hasn't stopped her.

Kehama wrote:

Now that they've removed her name from the license and she's not being forced to issue them personally, what's her beef?

Duh, icky people can still get married. Geeze you almost act like they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Wait are we talking about blacks or about gays? Ehh doesn't really matter. Whichever.

Kehama wrote:

Now that they've removed her name from the license and she's not being forced to issue them personally, what's her beef?

Her name hasn't been removed from the license. That's a requirement of Kentucky state law. She wants the state legislature to remove that requirement.

Her original beef was that her religious freedom was being curtailed by having to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Her modified beef is that her religious freedom is being curtailed because the same-sex marriage licenses being issued have her name on them, which she somehow interprets as meaning she's all for gay marriage.

OG_slinger wrote:

Her name hasn't been removed from the license.

Okay, that's where I'd messed up. I thought I'd heard a story that said the governor had removed her name from the licenses. Looking into it further it looks like Kim Davis' attorneys had just claimed the governor could do it but he has responded by saying he can't and that only the legislature could remove her name as a requirement.

And he's not willing to waste taxpayer money to call a special session when the legislature doesn't meet until Jan. And they might not even do it anyway. When 118 or 119 other counties of the 120 in Ky don't have a problem, it seems pointless to change the rules for her.

And if a clerk's name/signature/stamp isn't required on a document then wtf do we even have clerks and need to pay them $80k a year for? Clearly the assistant clerks which make much less are quite capable of issuing documents without her (well, all but her son). So she should either get over it, or give up the cushy job that's paying her for nothing.

Stele wrote:

And if a clerk's name/signature/stamp isn't required on a document then wtf do we even have clerks and need to pay them $80k a year for?

I forget where I saw it, but there was an article that talked about a possible outcome for this whole affair: the Kentucky state legislature changes the law so that existing state employees can issue marriage licenses, completely by-passing county clerks.

What makes this outcome even more appealing to state lawmakers is that the change would allow the state to pocket the $35 marriage license fee that currently goes into county coffers.

OG_slinger wrote:
Stele wrote:

And if a clerk's name/signature/stamp isn't required on a document then wtf do we even have clerks and need to pay them $80k a year for?

I forget where I saw it, but there was an article that talked about a possible outcome for this whole affair: the Kentucky state legislature changes the law so that existing state employees can issue marriage licenses, completely by-passing county clerks.

What makes this outcome even more appealing to state lawmakers is that the change would allow the state to pocket the $35 marriage license fee that currently goes into county coffers.

Good angle! I imagine the other 118/119 clerks won't be too happy to give up that fee, while the state could certainly put it to good use. It might even be my office that would take this up. I hope it comes down to this debate, it's the only aspect of this case I think the legislature should even deliberate.

Looks like Kimmy will be missing some more work next week.

This time it'll be because the Family Research Council is giving her an award--the ""Cost of Discipleship Award"--at the 10th annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.

And, more troubling, an Alabama probate judge has just petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court that he not be required to "give sanction and honor to homosexual relationships" and issue "a license to engage in sodomy." His argument, of course, is that doing his job violates his religious liberty.

I'm sure none of the straight couples he's wed have engaged in sodomy.

Demyx wrote:

I'm sure none of the straight couples he's wed have engaged in sodomy.

Well of course not. If they had, they wouldn't be straight. Duh.

I did get a kick out of the ad at the bottom of that article:

IMAGE(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5632/21505879941_0e1145c8f3_z.jpg)