New Kentucky Governor's Solution for Kim Davis

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Nov 6, 2015.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    The previous governor (a Democrat) had said the solution needed to come from the legislature. But the new Republican governor is choosing the route of Executive Order.

    I thought the most interesting part of the article was this ...
    It's odd to me that this would appeal to those who are against same sex marriage, as it gives up all control over who can or cannot have their license "purely" recorded. Can someone explain how this works for conservatives? Is this just a "take my ball and go home" kind of move? What's the end game with that plan?
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    Other than the fact you'll still need some sort of officiator to act as witness to the union, at a casual glance, it doesn't seem to be that terrible of an idea...
     
  3. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #3
    Nice.

    It appeals because Bevin is someone who is separating church from state, as it should be. The government should only record a civil union and allow government benefits on said union. Let the social conservatives have their cake and eat it. The next step is to reissue all government licenses with the term "Marriage" and replace them with "Civil Union"
     
  4. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #4
    Yes that will go over well. Marriage is sacrid.
     
  5. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Speaking of separating church and state, California has Kentucky beat. Check out these marriage laws ...
    California doesn't even care who marries you. It's totally up to the people getting married to judge how much of a concern that is.

    Super sweet.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    Are you against the idea?
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    The first one or the third one? Thought third one was the charm?
     
  8. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    Yes the 3rd. I only have tried once and wonky live long enough together even 30 more years in with another woman.
     
  9. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #9
    How about we just bar all you gentile from using the term "marriage"?
     
  10. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #10
    Excellent idea!!
    I wish they'd do this in europe, too.
     
  11. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #11
    It is against many peoples religion to be involved in the same sex marriage thing. That's why they refuse to participate. This proposal solves that problem.
    Why on earth would they be against that?
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    Issuing a licence is a duty of the government office that the person occupies. The individual has no participation in the marriage.

    I am against legislation that accommodates the ability of somebody to opt out of their public duties and to follow the law unless it is extended to everybody, including religious and nonreligious beliefs.
     
  13. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #13
    What's wrong with doing it online?
     
  14. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    Absolutely nothing. But if it is being done purely to accommodate the religious beliefs of clerks then I think it is wrong.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    Because they should be forced to be like you?
     
  16. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #16
    It is wrong to respect peoples religious believes without harming anyone?
     
  17. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #17
    I have no idea how Canada manages to do it without any loonies (or others) making weird demands, but here it's simply "marriage" without any "religious" implications. If some "Christian" wants to view his marriage as "'Christian' marriage", he's free to do so, especially by choosing a "church" as location of the ceremony (we got married in a friends art gallery with some "Wiccan" minister, although the mythological part was completely irrlevant, no deities addressed in our vows) Seems pretty clear to me. I think that the misconception of "marriage" supposedly being a "Christian" institution is what causes some to have comprehension issues with the whole topic.
     
  18. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #18
    How about we separate church from state and be done with it?
     
  19. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    That's a great way of ensuring marriage to anybody who wants one. Gays included. So I have no problem with your solution. SCOTUS has already rendered that concern moot, but no biggee. Go on. Separate all you like.
     
  20. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #20

    If it were so sacred then there wouldn't be divorce... get off the high horse, but make sure the horse is in front of a library. Go into the library and look up the word "sacrid" or sacred in a dictionary.
     
  21. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #21
    I was being sarcastic.
     
  22. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #22
    Only in your own mind. I don't know your religious or political beliefs.
     
  23. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #23
    got to hang around more. can't make dry sarcasm be to obvious.
     
  24. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    I prefer a delivery that isn't so pronounced.
     
  25. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    Yes, it is, because it is harming people by treating people differently. It's wrong to give more respect to religious beliefs than nonreligious beliefs. If this is being done in order for religious people to opt out of their duties then everybody else should also be able to opt out because of their nonreligious beliefs that conflict.

    And whilst we're at it, let's remove "religion" from the Civil Rights Act and replace it with "any closely held belief, religious or not".

    Can't have it both ways. Either you let everybody opt out of certain laws for all closely held beliefs or you grow up and put your closely held beliefs to one side whist carrying out your public duties.
     

Share This Page