Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws.
Loveshiscountry, you are correct (in a sense) that the government is not required to be involved in your marriage, as long as it is SOLELY a religious ceremony. I'm not sure where you'd find clergy that would marry you without a marriage license from the state/government, but I'm some person or group might. Of course, if you opt for a religious-only ceremony, you then also forego any opportunity to mingle taxes with your spouse, collect SS benefits on them (or have them collect any on your benefits if you die first); and countless other financial and legal benefits that accrue to the LEGAL married status that comes with a marriage license. So if you live in a preppie bunker and your BIL is willing to perform a ceremony for you and your mate, then by all means, go to it. The rest of us, straight and gay, will comply with the law. It does have its' advantages!
All that which you describe is a lot to know and can be confusing. Which brings up the argument, why is government involved on the first place? (on marriage it was for health reasons was they "said") Because we can't save and need government to save for us? Taxes, why do married people get to choose to file married or separately? Doesn't seem fair.
When you talk about the benefits you mean Federal government and not the states? Is that correct?
Sad to say, the name of the company that was the first to give benefits to same sex marriages before licenses were granted escapes me. San Francisco I think. They didn't need government to tell them to give out benefits.
"Five of six deputy clerks in a Kentucky county say they'll issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite their boss's defiance, but some are reluctant and emotional about the decision."
and if they don't, they too will be held in contempt of federal court.
All that which you describe is a lot to know and can be confusing. Which brings up the argument, why is government involved on the first place? Because we can't save and need government to save for us? Taxes, why do married people get to choose to file married or separately? Doesn't seem fair.
When you talk about the benefits you mean Federal government and not the states? Is that correct?
Sad to say, the name of the company that was the first to give benefits to same sex marriages before licenses were granted escapes me. San Francisco I think. They didn't need government to tell them to give out benefits.
The benefits we are talking about cannot be conferred by a company. SS survivor's benefits, for one obvious example.
Yes they will. If she is absent from office the local judge is allowed to authorize deputies to issue marriage licenses. She is out of the office, indefinitely.
sigh... part of your post - Everyone must obey the laws of the land
my response - You mean like those that participated in the American Revolution against Great Britain?
Stay with me now, we're almost there. You see back in the day those that fought against Great Britain didn't like the way Great Britain was using force on them even though no ones rights were violated.
Once you start invoking the revolution as a means to get what you want, just recognize that you're in no man's land and rule of law means nothing. There is no legal foundation for any society, "free" or not, that enshrines and codifies civil war.
By not being able to legally marry they are paying extra taxes, because married couples get tax breaks that single people do not.
Not necessarily. Filing separately has its advantages too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginmqi
They are not equal yet, some hospitals have refused gay partners to visit their ill companions on the basis that they were not legally married/family.
Why is that rule in place? Shouldn't that be up to the patient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginmqi
Also, her being in jail has nothing to do with her religious belief or opinion on gay movement. She violated the law, which as someone noted above is to execute the duties of her office without partiality and carry out the lawful obligations. Which she refused to do.
Of course it has to do with her religious beliefs. That's her entire basis for refusing to give out a license.
Once you start invoking the revolution as a means to get what you want, just recognize that you're in no man's land and rule of law means nothing. There is no legal foundation for any society, "free" or not, that enshrines and codifies civil war.
Unless you call yourself Black Lives Matter and browbeat the candidates of the Democratic party into apologizing for supporting the right to life of all people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
