Quetzal
New member
I have explained myself in a way that was easy to understand. Any assumptions you make (no matter how wrong they are) are up to you.
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Here's a copy of Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1
Proposed Marriage Amendment
On November 2, 2004, Kentucky’s voters will approve or reject a change to the state
Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and to mandate
that no such legal status will be given to unmarried individuals.
The Kentucky Constitution does not currently define marriage. The following question will
appear on the ballot.
Constitutional Amendment No. 1
Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution
to provide that only a marriage between one man and
one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a
legal status identical to or similar to marriage for
unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?
A “YES” vote will change the Kentucky
Constitution to define marriage in Kentucky
as that between one man and one woman
only. In addition, the proposed amendment
would not allow legal recognition of samesex
marriages performed out of Kentucky;
and would not allow legal status identical to
or similar to marriage for unmarried
individuals, such as civil unions, regardless
of where they were performed.
A “NO” vote will not change the
Kentucky Constitution regarding marriage.
If Kentucky voters reject the proposed
amendment, there will be no change to
existing Kentucky laws that currently
prohibit same-sex marriage and legal
recognition or validation of same-sex
marriage or civil union.
Effective Date
If the proposed amendment is approved by the
voters on November 2, it will take effect immediately
http://lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/2004_const_amendment_1.pdf
Kindly produce a copy of Kentucky's anti-miscegenation law of 1885 so that we can compare the similarities.
TracerBullet
New member
truly pathetic
In order to have a slippery slope, sodomites would have to be on a higher moral ground than those who engage in incest and bestiality.
Unblock me and show me that moral high ground that sodomites are on.
lifeisgood
New member
Translation: There's nothing you can say to me lifeisgood that I quetzal will agree with because you are a Christian and your opinion has no weight to me because I, quetzal, do not accept any Biblical premise.
TracerBullet
New member
show me the moral ground that you are standing on
lifeisgood
New member
Your opinion is noted. Thank you.
Quetzal
New member
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you really need to grow a backbone. I said none of those things.
If you were honest and admitted to engaging in a certain behavior, then I would gladly show that moral high ground between what God approves of and what He doesn't.
I believe you have some research to do going back to 1885 (it must be in the HRC archives somewhere).
lifeisgood
New member
Read for understanding will you.
You did not say those words, however, that's what you meant.
That is why lifeisgood said TRANSLATION.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning said he had no choice but to jail Kim Davis for contempt after she insisted that her "conscience will not allow" her to follow federal court rulings on gay marriage...Bunning offered to release Davis if she would promise not to interfere with her employees issuing marriage licenses on Friday morning. But Davis, through her attorneys, rejected that offer and chose to stay in jail. Boston Herald, 9/5
So she is where she wants to be. She had the option of resigning, of doing her job or of standing down and letting others do her job and she chose to enforce her religious code on others instead.
Gannam (her attorney) compared her willingness to be jailed to protest being prohibited from denying citizens of this nation their rights to MLK's willingness to be jailed for protesting people being denied their rights.
Seriously, he did that. Well, he didn't acknowledge the fundamental difference, but he did compare them.
In related news: spinning sound heard around King Center tomb.
lifeisgood
New member
Her job, the same as every Christian, is to do what is right. And being a homo is wrong, regardless of what the law might say. So being a homo should not be legitimized with something like pretending they can get married.
Her mistake is citing the law. And that's too bad, but even if she's doing the right thing for the wrong reason it's better than doing the wrong thing for whatever reason.
I was not aware that federal judges were employers ... that is who usually deals with recalcitrant employees. Most of us just get fired ... we don't go to jail.
Live and learn.
lifeisgood
New member
And this is the crux of the matter that most Christians are blinded to.
He can't fire her, but she was obstructing a Court order. That's her stepping on his toes. Do that with a federal judge and you're going to jail ninety-nine percent of the time. He actually showed a lot more restraint than I've seen out of many of them, attempted to give her a way out of the mess short of resigning and she chose a different path.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Nope.
She's an elected officer of the Court with proscribed duties. Her job is to follow the law and execute the obligations of her office. If her conscience won't allow for it then she should resign...though as I noted, in this case she didn't have to do either, but she decided on the present course.
The law isn't holding out a moral opinion. So it is neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with you on your belief. It's simply denying you the right to impose that belief on someone who doesn't share it.
lifeisgood
New member
I know what parts I would refuse to perform, e.g., one of the duties I would refuse is signing marriage licenses to man/man, woman/woman, man/woman/woman, etc.
And yes, I would pay for the consequences of my decision come what it may.
Affirmative that they could.
Consequences would be swift in two cases as lives would be hurt and/or destroyed through no fault of their own.
On the third, most would not even bat an eye.
Last edited:
lifeisgood
New member
It would be nice, quetzal, instead of calling me a coward in the shadows, you would call me a coward in the light.
Now, that would be courageous.
Now, that would be courageous.