Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)

Started by kylie, September 02, 2015, 09:47:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kylie

      Davis, the county clerk somewhere in Kentucky who has been pleading religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses (and has since stopped issuing any licenses but is getting sued for that too, apparently didn't realize that she issued a license to a couple including a transguy.  I would feel more clear about the report if anyone has gotten Davis to comment on the matter, although I doubt it would necessarily be in her best interest to do so (given the ongoing legal proceedings).  So if one assumes her definition of 'man and woman' would be about medically assigned sex [setting aside, most people don't understand med-sex particularly in the assignment is not really based on strictly objective evidence itself]...  Then she would seem to have unwittingly breached her own principle. 

      There's a possibly somewhat more precise (if brief) recounting of Davis' role in that marriage here:

Quote from: Salandra (Newnownext)
Camryn Colen and his wife Alexis said that it was another county staffer that issued the license, but that Davis is allegedly the one who said she didn’t need to see Colen’s birth certificate, which still identifies him as female.


       ...  Not that it stands to reason that unwittingly breaching a principle is going to always lead someone to change.  But umm in a logical world (knock on wood): It should make people think a little bit more about...

     1) whether the Bible she claims to be concerned about was actually concerned about sexual relations or social gender roles (and I believe it was more the latter than the former, particularly in those Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages so often raised),

     and 2) how society generally is so often happy to mark love and family in public life very often by the visuals of what a couple does (everything from simple hugging and sharing time/labor to umm, still too often terribly segregated gender roles which often helps people like Davis see "just a straight couple in love" for those trans who can "pass") -- but it's usually not by making close inspections of chromosomes, medical histories, or the space between anyone's legs. 
     

Jag

Quote from: kylie on September 02, 2015, 09:47:45 PM
      Davis, the county clerk somewhere in Kentucky who has been pleading religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses (and has since stopped issuing any licenses but is getting sued for that too, apparently didn't realize that she issued a license to a couple including a transguy.  I would feel more clear about the report if anyone has gotten Davis to comment on the matter, although I doubt it would necessarily be in her best interest to do so (given the ongoing legal proceedings).  So if one assumes her definition of 'man and woman' would be about medically assigned sex [setting aside, most people don't understand med-sex particularly in the assignment is not really based on strictly objective evidence itself]...  Then she would seem to have unwittingly breached her own principle. 

      There's a possibly somewhat more precise (if brief) recounting of Davis' role in that marriage here:

       ...  Not that it stands to reason that unwittingly breaching a principle is going to always lead someone to change.  But umm in a logical world (knock on wood): It should make people think a little bit more about...

     1) whether the Bible she claims to be concerned about was actually concerned about sexual relations or social gender roles (and I believe it was more the latter than the former, particularly in those Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages so often raised),

     and 2) how society generally is so often happy to mark love and family in public life very often by the visuals of what a couple does (everything from simple hugging and sharing time/labor to umm, still too often terribly segregated gender roles which often helps people like Davis see "just a straight couple in love" for those trans who can "pass") -- but it's usually not by making close inspections of chromosomes, medical histories, or the space between anyone's legs.

I live near Rowan county. Not in it, but near. This is something I can't avoid. It's talked about all over town and at work. Currently, there is a small protest growing in the city about 15 minutes from my house. There is a preacher out on the sidewalk calling for the saving of Davis and how the city needs to band together to cover any fines or bail money she might need. She's becoming a martyr in their eyes.

As for her issuing the license to the transguy, it was briefly brought up in a video I saw when a gay couple tried to go get their license for the 4th or 5th time. She didn't answer it directly, cause they also hit her with the question on if she would issue one to a biracial couple. Her only response was that "So long as it's a man and a woman". But she is only judging this 'man and woman' based on physical appearances. So for her, so long as the couple is 'passable', she apparently hasn't been asking for birth certificates.

She is currently in court along with her office staff. They are having a hearing to determine if she is going to be held in contempt of court. If so, she will either suffer a fine or jail time. Many of the people against her are asking for heavy fines, as sending her to jail would only fire up her supporters even more. Many are asking that she be fined for every day she refused to issue a license.

As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. She swore an oath to uphold the laws of the state and government. She is only picking same sex marriage licenses to deny, even though her religion is against divorce as well (she's been married 4 times, by the way). Her religious freedoms are not being affected in any way (she can still go to church, she can still pray, she can still do whatever she wants on her private, non-taxpayer funded time).

My thoughts are that the judge wants her whole office there and is going to just line them up starting with her and ask if they are going to start complying with his orders. I imagine she will say no, get her fines or jail time, and each one after her will likely state that they will do their duties and were simply following her orders or were under threat of losing their jobs (which would likely add to her charges). The local judge has already stated that if she goes to jail, he is more than willing to start issuing the licenses in her absence.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Cycle

Kim Davis irritates me greatly. 

She's only an office holder.  Those marriage licenses do no belong to her.  They belong to the State of Kentucky.  She is just a tool to effectuate the State's obligation to its citizens.  Like any other tool, if she can't accomplish the task, she needs to be replaced. 


Jag

Quote from: Cycle on September 03, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
...she needs to be replaced.

Sadly, it is not that easy. If they could just fire her, they would have.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Cycle

*nods*  I did read that it'll take impeachment to remove her from office.  Too bad.

At least now she'll have plenty of time to reflect on her decision.  Off to the big house you go, Ms. Davis...


LisztesFerenc

  Umm....they cannot sack her, but they can send her to jail? Shouldn't it be harder to send someone to jail than to sack them?

Cycle

Different "theys."

The "they" that can fire her is basically the Kentucky State Legislature, I believe.  The Legislature needs to impeach her to "fire" her.

The "they" that is jailing her is a Federal Judge.  She had been ordered by said Judge to issue the licenses.  She disobeyed the order.  That Judge then has to power to hold her in contempt of court.  The penalty for contempt can be monetary fines, or jail time, or both.  In this case, he chose to toss her in jail until she decides to comply.


eBadger

Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 03, 2015, 12:37:08 PM
  Umm....they cannot sack her, but they can send her to jail? Shouldn't it be harder to send someone to jail than to sack them?

It's an elected position, so not simply up to the discretion of a superior whether she keeps it or not.  She's not just some hired clerk or something. 

LisztesFerenc

Quote from: eBadger on September 03, 2015, 12:52:52 PM
It's an elected position, so not simply up to the discretion of a superior whether she keeps it or not.  She's not just some hired clerk or something.

  So is the position of president. Are you telling me it would be easier to jail Obama than to impeach him?

Oniya

I recall reading that impeachment procedures have been instigated, but she's using every avenue open to her to delay that.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

eBadger

Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 03, 2015, 12:54:29 PM
  So is the position of president. Are you telling me it would be easier to jail Obama than to impeach him?

The president is obviously a somewhat special case, considering the political ramifications and issues of enforcement against a sitting head of state (particularly as he could simply pardon himself, or use his authority to effect his own release from enforcement).  But yes; any judge could render a sentence against Obama.  It would take congressional impeachment proceedings (including a supermajority of the Senate) to remove him from the presidency. 

For a larger and more accurate reference, only 8 federal office holders have been impeached in the history of the US. 


Dashenka

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1


So she's going to prison for denying gay people to get married basically?

What happened there? From no rights to this? In no time at all....

The US keeps amazing me :D This time in a good way.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

eBadger

Quote from: Dashenka on September 03, 2015, 02:13:34 PMWhat happened there? From no rights to this? In no time at all....

It was the same court ruling: that all states must recognize same sex marriage and treat it equally.  She refused to do so, and is therefore being jailed for not carrying out the law as she is required to by virtue of being in a government position.  It's not an escalation, it's just enforcement - without which the ruling would mean nothing. 

Note that she could have simply quit her position to avoid all of this. 

Jag

Quote from: eBadger on September 03, 2015, 02:56:33 PM

Note that she could have simply quit her position to avoid all of this.

But then she wouldn't be a martyr, be on TV, or possibly get a book deal.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

LisztesFerenc

Quote from: eBadger on September 03, 2015, 02:03:25 PM
The president is obviously a somewhat special case, considering the political ramifications and issues of enforcement against a sitting head of state (particularly as he could simply pardon himself, or use his authority to effect his own release from enforcement).  But yes; any judge could render a sentence against Obama.  It would take congressional impeachment proceedings (including a supermajority of the Senate) to remove him from the presidency. 

For a larger and more accurate reference, only 8 federal office holders have been impeached in the history of the US.

  Interesting. What is the reason for this set up, or is it common place and I just never heard of it? Is it to allow people to protest laws they deem unjust by not enforcing them without losing their job and thus being unable to exercise political change as effectively? I.e. exactly what this lady was doing, only this is a bad example, where as there are genuinely unjust laws that could potentially be challenged this way.

Oniya

#15
It's more of a difference between an elected position and a hired position.  In essence, there is no 'supervisor' who has the power to terminate her employment, other than the Kentucky State Government.

more detailed description here.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

eBadger

Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 03, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
  Interesting. What is the reason for this set up, or is it common place and I just never heard of it? Is it to allow people to protest laws they deem unjust by not enforcing them without losing their job and thus being unable to exercise political change as effectively? I.e. exactly what this lady was doing, only this is a bad example, where as there are genuinely unjust laws that could potentially be challenged this way.

Impeachment proceedings?  To prevent some small fry judge from jailing the president for a parking ticket and shutting down the government whenever he doesn't like national policy.  It's actually pretty fundamental. 

Also, impeachment is separate from conviction.  One can be removed from office without being sent to jail, or vice versa. 

Oniya

Quote from: eBadger on September 03, 2015, 03:19:22 PM
Also, impeachment is separate from conviction.  One can be removed from office without being sent to jail, or vice versa.

Impeachment actually only refers to the process itself.  One can be impeached without even ending up out of office (case in point, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and acquitted.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

LisztesFerenc

Quote from: eBadger on September 03, 2015, 03:19:22 PM
Impeachment proceedings?  To prevent some small fry judge from jailing the president for a parking ticket and shutting down the government whenever he doesn't like national policy.  It's actually pretty fundamental.

Impeachment proceedings are the only things stopping that from happening? I find that hard to believe. Doesn't the state first need to decide to pursue the issue before a judge rules on the matter? Does all European countries have similar requirements?

eBadger

Quote from: Oniya on September 03, 2015, 03:25:09 PMImpeachment actually only refers to the process itself.  One can be impeached without even ending up out of office (case in point, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and acquitted.)

*Nods* I've been using it in the popular manner, but yes, legalistically read that as "a vote supporting impeachment (does that even have a term?) is different from judicial conviction". 

Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 03, 2015, 03:28:05 PMImpeachment proceedings are the only things stopping that from happening? I find that hard to believe. Doesn't the state first need to decide to pursue the issue before a judge rules on the matter? Does all European countries have similar requirements?

I suppose you'd need a traffic cop as well.  But yes, politicians are subject to the law, too.  If a congressman kills his wife, he'll go to jail.  He could just continue to be a congressman there until the impeachment concludes. 

This wiki is informative, although I don't think it includes all of the countries with such laws.  Our system is based on the British one. 

Cycle

The President of the United States actually enjoys considerable immunity to judicial action.  Read this. 

So while Davis, a County Clerk, could be sued and subjected to an injunction to do X (e.g., issue marriage licenses), you can't do that to President Obama (e.g., you cannot sue him to stop him from affirming the Iran Nuclear Deal). 

The powers of his office are vastly different than the one Davis holds.  Comparing them is like comparing apples to Lamborgihinis.


eBadger

Follow up on the Davis stuff; first, and I believe most important, the judge used the word "shenanigans," which I think makes him officially awesome.  I have this wonderful image of a small town hick judge sporting overalls beneath his robe as he supports gay marriage in the most awesome way.  I'm not sure I dare google what he actually looks like lest this destroy my mind image. 

Second, licenses are now being handed out!  Apparently all the other employees at the office were fine with it except for Davis' son. 

Also some clarification on the jail time: it's not just for refusing to do the licenses.  There was also some contempt of court, apparently, which courts tend to get grumpy about. 

Finally, if you haven't seen any of the Sitnexto Kim Davis tweets, they're worth a read. 

Cycle

Let's be clear here.  Kim Davis can get out of jail at any time

All she needs to do is (a) agree to issue marriage licenses, (b) resign her position as County Clerk so someone else can do the job, or (c) agree not to interfere with the five Deputy County Clerks when they issue marriage licenses.

Her refusal to accept option (c) pretty much rips through her sham "you can't make me violate my religion" defense.  At this point, she's just sitting in jail for personal gain.


Lustful Bride

Quote from: eBadger on September 04, 2015, 12:42:00 PM
Follow up on the Davis stuff; first, and I believe most important, the judge used the word "shenanigans," which I think makes him officially awesome.  I have this wonderful image of a small town hick judge sporting overalls beneath his robe as he supports gay marriage in the most awesome way.  I'm not sure I dare google what he actually looks like lest this destroy my mind image.

That is awesome, I can only picture him as Fred Gwynne,

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Cycle on September 04, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
Her refusal to accept option (c) pretty much rips through her sham "you can't make me violate my religion" defense.  At this point, she's just sitting in jail for personal gain.

Pretty much.  All it is is her being a martyr. 

I heard on the news this morning that the judge can keep her in jail for up to 18 months. 

Not sure how much of this can be substantiated, but if it's true....hypocrite much?
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Cycle

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 01:47:18 PM
I heard on the news this morning that the judge can keep her in jail for up to 18 months. 

I think a Federal Judge can keep Ms. Davis in there for as long as the Judge thinks it may coerce her to comply with the order.  There was one guy that they kept in the slammer for 14 years...  Maybe Ms. Davis is going for the record?  Though on a practical level, if he just keeps her in there until her term expires, then the issue would be mooted.


Valerian

A quick Google search shows that her term doesn't expire until the beginning of 2019.  So that would be a considerable length of time, even if nowhere near the record...
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Jag

Quote from: eBadger on September 04, 2015, 12:42:00 PM

Also some clarification on the jail time: it's not just for refusing to do the licenses.  There was also some contempt of court, apparently, which courts tend to get grumpy about. 

The most recent court appearance had nothing to do with the refusing of the licenses. It was all the contempt of court. She had been told weeks ago by a judge that she had to start issuing licenses or at least allow her staff to do it (which she wouldn't, because it would still be considered her approval at the time). So she appealed and the recent judge held the contempt hearing and was basically asking her if she intended to follow the ruling handed down by the previous judge. She said no, so she was held in contempt of court for a previous ruling.

As for her office staff, about an hour before the court hearing, there was an article put up that many people in her office feared trying to issue licenses due to the ramifications she would bring down on them. She was elected, they were hired. They feared she would fire them.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Oniya

Quote from: Jagerin on September 04, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
As for her office staff, about an hour before the court hearing, there was an article put up that many people in her office feared trying to issue licenses due to the ramifications she would bring down on them. She was elected, they were hired. They feared she would fire them.

That was the general impression that I had of the situation.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Mithlomwen

The thing that I can't figure out, is that she (and those that support her) are screaming that she is being persecuted for her beliefs. 

But...I don't understand how what she's been doing (in refusing to issue licenses to gay couples) is not persecution to the couples?
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Oniya

Simple.  It is persecution of those couples.  She is not being persecuted for her beliefs - she is suffering the consequences of not following a court order to perform the duties that she swore an oath to perform.  (By the way, the Bible isn't too keen on people forswearing themselves either.)  To say that she is 'simply' following a Biblical mandate not to support homosexuality is frankly hypocritical, as she has not bothered to check to see if any of the heterosexual couples she's issued a license to have been previously divorced (which the Bible denounces as adultery).

If you refuse to make a BLT because 'pigs are unclean', you don't get to turn around and make a ham and Swiss on rye without getting called on it.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Mithlomwen

Oh, sorry I should have clarified.  I personally understand why it is that she's in jail.  What I can't figure out is how she (and the people support her) can claim persecution when she (and her supporters) are persecuting others.  I can't wrap my brain around how she feels justified to persecute others, but is indignant when she feels she's being persecuted. 

It's like the pot calling the kettle black. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
Oh, sorry I should have clarified.  I personally understand why it is that she's in jail.  What I can't figure out is how she (and the people support her) can claim persecution when she (and her supporters) are persecuting others.  I can't wrap my brain around how she feels justified to persecute others, but is indignant when she feels she's being persecuted. 

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

That's pretty much how extremism and intolerance works, really. When you do it, it's okay/acceptable/God's Will. When someone else does it, it's unfair/bigotry/persecution/violation of your religious rights. Hypocritical, yeah.

Oniya

It very much is.  My point was that she and her supporters are either being hypocritical or plain old idiots.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Oniya on September 04, 2015, 03:30:16 PM
It very much is.  My point was that she and her supporters are either being hypocritical or plain old idiots.

Or both. 

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on September 04, 2015, 03:26:52 PM
That's pretty much how extremism and intolerance works, really. When you do it, it's okay/acceptable/God's Will. When someone else does it, it's unfair/bigotry/persecution/violation of your religious rights. Hypocritical, yeah.

Very much so. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Valerian

It's fascinating to watch Jeb Bush try to be on all sides of this issue at once:

Quote
"She is sworn to uphold the law," Bush told reporters in New Hampshire, according to BuzzFeed, suggesting that taking Davis into custody was the right call. However, he went on to explain that while he's against discrimination, he's in favor of letting people express their discriminatory religious views.

Noting that it's "a sign of leadership" to be able to solve such problems, Bush suggested a compromise: Just let someone else in the office issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

This last, of course, is one of the compromises that Davis has already rejected.

The article also calls Bush "the Schrödinger's cat of civil rights issues".  I liked that.   ;D
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Cycle

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
What I can't figure out is how she (and the people support her) can claim persecution when she (and her supporters) are persecuting others.  I can't wrap my brain around how she feels justified to persecute others, but is indignant when she feels she's being persecuted. 

My feeling is that this now a front she's put on, for personal gain.  Alas, GoFundMe's recent policy change means she won't be able to cash in that way.  But I bet a talking head gig on some cable show will still pay decent bucks.  Maybe a book deal too.  And a movie...  Think Angelina Jolie would be interested in playing lead?  No wait.  Better yet.  FanFic.  Fifty Shades of Bigotry.  The series!


Mithlomwen

Quote from: Cycle on September 04, 2015, 03:38:16 PM
No wait.  Better yet.  FanFic.  Fifty Shades of Bigotry.  The series!

*flails* 

Don't say that too loudly....someone might think it's a good idea! 

Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

eBadger

Would it involve whipping the crap out of her?  We could all be happy. 

Sara Nilsson

#39
Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
Oh, sorry I should have clarified.  I personally understand why it is that she's in jail.  What I can't figure out is how she (and the people support her) can claim persecution when she (and her supporters) are persecuting others.  I can't wrap my brain around how she feels justified to persecute others, but is indignant when she feels she's being persecuted. 

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/jeb-bush-a-tolerant-country-should-allow-discrimination-based-upon-religious-beliefs/

well these people think it is ok if THEY are the ones discriminating, but if they are attacked.. holy hell...



thankfully it is just a vocal minority, but sadly they make the rest of the understanding and sane christians look bad :(

Jag

As I've said before, I live close to Rowen county. Yesterday there was a preacher shouting through a PA system about damnation and a lake of fiery hell for all of in support of the persecution of her. It was kind of fun to watch him.  ::)
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Mithlomwen

From Mike Huckabee's FB page:

QuoteHaving Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny. Five, unelected Supreme Court lawyers did not and cannot make law. They can only make rulings. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme branch and it's certainly not the Supreme Being.

I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty.

So, a presidential hopeful is condoning and supporting an elected official not upholding the law because of her religious beliefs. 

And this man wants to be our president? 

I have no words.....
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Cycle

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 04:03:58 PM
So, a presidential hopeful is condoning and supporting an elected official not upholding the law because of her religious beliefs. 



Sara Nilsson

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 04, 2015, 04:03:58 PM
From Mike Huckabee's FB page:

So, a presidential hopeful is condoning and supporting an elected official not upholding the law because of her religious beliefs. 

And this man wants to be our president? 

I have no words.....

yet if it was say a muslim man refusing to give a woman a drivers license or something like that.. watch what he would say about religious beliefs.

Ebb

I've learned that virtually any political comment which makes reference to "unelected judges" can be safely ignored as baseless tripe.

Oniya

Quote from: Sara Nilsson on September 04, 2015, 04:11:25 PM
yet if it was say a muslim man refusing to give a woman a drivers license or something like that.. watch what he would say about religious beliefs.

Or a Quaker refusing to issue a gun license.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Lustful Bride

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on September 04, 2015, 03:26:52 PM
That's pretty much how extremism and intolerance works, really. When you do it, it's okay/acceptable/God's Will. When someone else does it, it's unfair/bigotry/persecution/violation of your religious rights. Hypocritical, yeah.

Hit the nail on the head right there :P

Sara Nilsson

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/04/judge-refuses-let-straight-couple-divorce-because-he-doesnt-know-what-marriage-is-any-more/

I what.. he is refusing to let a couple divorce since apparently now he needs to know what isnt marriage by the Supreme Court. At least this is weeding out the assholes en masse

Jag

Quote from: Sara Nilsson on September 04, 2015, 04:59:57 PM
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/04/judge-refuses-let-straight-couple-divorce-because-he-doesnt-know-what-marriage-is-any-more/

I what.. he is refusing to let a couple divorce since apparently now he needs to know what isnt marriage by the Supreme Court. At least this is weeding out the assholes en masse

I'm not sure how many facepalms this one deserves.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Blythe

Split into new topic--was enough posts to warrant it's own thread! Apologies if I missed anything. >_>

Blythe

Double post--okay, hopefully this time that's all the posts that needed to be here. Derped and forgot a large part of the convo--should be fixed now. ^^

Cycle

Now she's saying the licenses issued by the deputies are supposedly "void."  Never mind that is just flat out wrong, per the County's own attorney.  This position again reveals her true colors.  Kim Davis simply does not want same sex couples to ever enjoy marriage--under any circumstances.

Hey, Ms. Davis: " 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  There is no other commandment greater than these.”  Mark 12:31.

You got four marriage licenses.  Why can't other people have even one?


Jag

Many of her supporters are stating that her previous marriages were from before she found God and therefore cannot be used as an argument.  ::)
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Oniya

Numbers 30:2

"If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

Quote30A.020   Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every  clerk  and  deputy,  in  addition  to  the  oath  prescribed  by  Section  228  of  the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence  of  the  Circuit  Court:    "I,  .....,  do  swear  that  I  will  well  and  truly  discharge  the duties  of  the  office  of  ..............  County  Circuit  Court  clerk,  according  to  the  best  of  my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."  The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Iniquitous

#54
Quote from: Jagerin on September 04, 2015, 06:19:48 PM
Many of her supporters are stating that her previous marriages were from before she found God and therefore cannot be used as an argument.  ::)

And all you do then is quote Matthew 5 to them. Specifically:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Oh, and Oniya has it right about the whole taking an oath... could always quote:

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths




All in the book of Matthew, chapter 5.

And anyone claiming that she is born again now and nothing prior to her being saved counts - Jesus flat out stated his coming to earth did not invalidate the laws of the Old Testament.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


And this - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-hunt/the-biblical-problem-with-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis_b_8071506.html  - is definitely worth a read.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Lustful Bride

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on September 05, 2015, 04:14:36 PM
And all you do then is quote Matthew 5 to them. Specifically:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Oh, and Oniya has it right about the whole taking an oath... could always quote:

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths




All in the book of Matthew, chapter 5.

And anyone claiming that she is born again now and nothing prior to her being saved counts - Jesus flat out stated his coming to earth did not invalidate the laws of the Old Testament.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


And this - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-hunt/the-biblical-problem-with-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis_b_8071506.html  - is definitely worth a read.

The longer this goes on the more I just want to shake my head. She is the worst example of...well everything come to think of it.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

*Insert the usual 'this is why we cant have nice things' joke*

Jag

So, I haven't been involved in my hubby's Asatru stuff in a while, but they used to talk about the things done to Oathbreakers. If we should uphold her right to keep her position and continuing pulling money in from it for religious reasons, but while cutting out a portion of her duties...then should we uphold the rights of the Asatrus and what they do to Oathbreakers? Which would basically be restitution to those she broke her oath to? Us the people of Kentucky? What would be proper restitution for something like this? Possibly back payment of her salary for the part of her job she didn't do?
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Cycle

Interesting point, Jagerin.  Well, I supposed the judge could impose a financial penalty of $219.18 per day (which will add up to $80,000 in one year--the equivalent of her salary, for the job she's not doing while sitting in jail), plus the cost to house and feed her every day (say, $500).  Make it a nice even $720 per day she refuses to obey the court order.

I'm sure there are plenty of rich bigots who will happily pay that for Ms. Davis.  Then your county wouldn't be out any money as a result of her nonsense.


Jag

Not my county...though there are plenty of people in mine that are in full support of her. Same people who ran the lingerie store out of town for being too racy, but made 50 Shades of Grey a sold out film in our theater. We do have a lot of people lining up to help her financially. It was crazy trying to drive through town the other day. They were all out there. I was surprised I didn't see the little white baggies of white rice with the KKK meeting flyers being passed around. No, they'd rather leave those in our drive way.  ::)

Most of the people against her were calling for fines and fees. The judge felt that jail time would be better for her. Personally, I would have gone with fining her ass. Eventually, even her supporters would get tired of paying them off for her.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Oniya

My brain hurts now.  The Westboros have gotten involved in this.  They are agreeing that the judge should have jailed Kim Davis and are declaring her an oath-breaker. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Iniquitous

I read something about them getting involved. I couldn't figure out why they are not on her side so I closed the article. I wasn't up to the task of trying to understand.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


kylie

#61
     I'm not really bothered by the imagery of having her in jail.  If the state is going to send people to jail for protesting the Iraq war by the thousands in generally proper ways (most of the more visible police measures were ruled illegal months or years later in New York), then isn't this a much clearer case of state policy being enforced against someone who's clearly violated it?  It isn't the death penalty and maybe at some point, I want to see some consistency. 

      She could simply resign the post, or perhaps move to Canada (ahem, that was a jab at rightists not having a clue about Canada, strike that!) say, Uganda in the spirit of another generation of conscientious objectors if she say feels "her country" is so ruined...  Or she could join a movement against our reliance on the prison system...  But oh, then that would have to include using the prison system to haul in people who distribute the "wrong" kinds of publications by mail when some local postmaster goes on a rampage, or against people who have sex in the park restrooms on the basis of "indecent" or purportedly "threats to the children." 

     The judge has a point too:  If she can find money to cover this, how is exacting fines without jailing her going to help?  At least this way, the policy goes forward with people issuing licenses.  I suppose I can also understand the desire not to be "as nasty as the Christian right has been" when involving the state by demanding such punitive measures, but when she's not likely to be ejected from office --whatever else would work to that end?

     
     

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Oniya on September 05, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
My brain hurts now.  The Westboros have gotten involved in this.  They are agreeing that the judge should have jailed Kim Davis and are declaring her an oath-breaker.

That makes my head hurt too. 

I read a news article today that said she and her lawyers are going to appeal the charges. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Jazra

It's a sad situation. Kim Davis is 100% wrong. While I hate anyone to go to jail for taking a stand of conscience, this is probably the least damaging way of having her reflect on her decision. The keys to release are literally in her hands.

I actually enjoyed the Huffington Post Article that listed four reasons she's wrong from a Christian perspective (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-boeskool/four-reasons-kim-davis-is-wrong_b_8074614.html.). But I don't think she's the kind of woman who is going to be persuaded by rational reasons.
Ons & Offs
Absences

Boy, “If I and a slice of pizza fall in the water, which do you save?

Girl, wipes grease off her chin, “Why'd you let my pizza fall in the water?”

Jag

Quote from: Oniya on September 05, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
My brain hurts now.  The Westboros have gotten involved in this.  They are agreeing that the judge should have jailed Kim Davis and are declaring her an oath-breaker.

Who let those nutjobs out of their box again? >.>

But hey, if even the local hate group looks down on you for condoning what they condone, you know you're doing something wrong. Right?

I think I worded that right. >.<
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Caehlim

I don't know who this is a quote from, but I heard it the other day and think it covers the situation well.

"If you wouldn't support a Muslim denying a heterosexual couple a marriage license because the woman wasn't wearing a hijab, then no you're not supporting Kim Davis because you believe in religious freedom."
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

BCdan

A religious pacifist may obtain a religious exemption in order to abstain from compulsory enrollment in the army, which would force that soldier to fight in contravention of his morals.

A religious pacifist may not enlist in the army, draw a soldiers salary, and then refuse to fight the enemy when the time comes on account of his religious conviction. 



~I enjoy random PM's~

Cycle

The Judge just ordered Kim Davis released from jail because he is satisfied marriage licenses are now being issued in that County.  He also ordered her not to interfere with her deputies when they issue licenses going forward, and she's supposed to give him a status report in two weeks.

Let's see if Ms. Davis will behave...


Zakharra

 I am doubting she will not interfere. She's the type that doesn't know when to quit and will stick her nose and fingers into places they don't belong. As much as she doesn't like it, she does NOT have the authority to deny marriage licenses to hetero or homo sexual couples, regardless of her religious beliefs. She would have likely mostly been ignored if she had let her deputy clerks do it if she had a religious objection about it.

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Zakharra on September 08, 2015, 12:28:29 PM
I am doubting she will not interfere.

I agree.  If I'm not mistaken she's already  stated that she will not allow any of her deputies to issue licenses to same sex couples.  But that was before she was sent to jail.  But I'm pretty sure she will go right back to refusing to issue them.  Her lawyers have stated that she remains 'steadfast' in her beliefs. 

Mike Huckabee was supposed to visit her today in support of her decisions.
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Oniya

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 08, 2015, 01:21:38 PM
Mike Huckabee was supposed to visit her today in support of her decisions.

So was Ted Cruz.

"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

kylie

#71
     Huckabee speaking at a rally for Davis:

Quote
“If somebody needs to go to jail, I’m willing to go in her place, and I mean that,” Huckabee said. “I’m tired of watching people being harassed because they believe something of their faith.”

     Oh, if only sending him to jail would ensure people issued the licenses!  Dang it.  ;)  But wow, how often do these raving conservatives claim they're willing to do some odd drastic "risky" thing that when you look closely, well they can be pretty sure by their own remove from the case that the conditions will never be nearly right for them to actually be put to the test. 

     "Harassed."  Who has been forcefully lobotimizing their kids for being Christian, and vaguely calling their beliefs generally "bad for the children," (though I could probably think of some better reasons we might do so specifically and with evidence) and refusing to allow them to marry lately?  Pff.  I believe something of their faith too -- these factions don't know a whole lot about the origins of that there Book, nor do they really want to.


     

Ariel

Quote from: Cycle on September 08, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
The Judge just ordered Kim Davis released from jail because he is satisfied marriage licenses are now being issued in that County.  He also ordered her not to interfere with her deputies when they issue licenses going forward, and she's supposed to give him a status report in two weeks.

Let's see if Ms. Davis will behave...

Wait a second. So she wasn't fired? She's seriously able to go right back to her job?

... I just.. wow.
Not accepting new RPs

Apologies | Ons/Offs | Finds | Requests + Rumbelle Craving

Zakharra

Quote from: Ariel on September 08, 2015, 02:47:13 PM
Wait a second. So she wasn't fired? She's seriously able to go right back to her job?

... I just.. wow.

I believe the only ones who can fire her is the governing body of the Kentucky county she lives in (or the Kentucky legislature), and they aren't in session atm.

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Ariel on September 08, 2015, 02:47:13 PM
Wait a second. So she wasn't fired? She's seriously able to go right back to her job?

... I just.. wow.

Yup.  She's an elected official so she can't technically be fired in the usual way. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Jazra

From what I've read, the only way to get her out of office before the end of her term is impeachment or resignation. Even going to jail or prison for contempt (and she's been released) doesn't mean she'll lose her office. To me, the question is whether the legislature would have the votes to impeach her even if they tried.
Ons & Offs
Absences

Boy, “If I and a slice of pizza fall in the water, which do you save?

Girl, wipes grease off her chin, “Why'd you let my pizza fall in the water?”

Cycle

Quote from: Ariel on September 08, 2015, 02:47:13 PM
Wait a second. So she wasn't fired? She's seriously able to go right back to her job?

... I just.. wow.

Hey Ariel, good to see you around again!  :-)

Yeah, just so we're all on the same page:  basically what happened was a while back, some same sex folks wanted a marriage license from Kim Davis' county.  She, as the county clerk, refused to issue it and also ordered her deputies not to.  Then she stopped issuing marriage licenses completely.  The same sex couple and some different sex couples all sued Kim Davis, trying to get a judge to order her to issue marriage licenses.  They succeeded, and the Federal judge ordered Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses.  She appealed.  Lost.  Appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost again (they declined to take it up on review).  So, the order is valid and good.

Kim Davis then still refused to comply, and was ordered to appear before said judge.  The judge found her to be in contempt of his order, and imposed a sanction to get her to comply.  Now, a judge can impose either monetary sanctions, or jail time, or both.  He chose jail time because of all the people saying they'd just pay any monetary penalties for Kim Davis.  On the day he sent her to jail, the judge gave Kim Davis one more chance:  five of the six deputies agreed to issue licenses, so he would not send Davis to jail of she agreed not to interfere with those five deputies.  She refused, and so, off to jail she went.

To be clear, Kim Davis is not under arrest for a crime.  She isn't a criminal.  She was held in jail because she was in contempt of a court order.  It's really no different from a situation where someone violations a restraining order--i.e., ex-spouse is ordered not to go within 500 feet, he does, he can be fined or thrown in jail for violating the restraining order.

Her lawyers are spinning and spinning hard.  Most of what they say--e.g., she was arrested for her faith--is pure hogwash.  She was tossed in jail for defying a judge.  Something which we, as a society, have lived with for hundreds of years now.  You simply don't get to screw around with judges.  And the system needs to work that way or it falls apart--imagine what would happen if everyone is allowed to defy a judge's order at will. 


gaggedLouise

#77
I don't recall ever hearing of a case where a judge was found guilty of criminal abuse of his/her office (different from just making a couple of gravely phoney judicial decisions - almost any judge can be found in error by an appeals court) and sent to jail, but I figure such cases must exist, even if they're very rare. If that happened, the judge would be relieved of their office very quickly, or so I hope.

(Where I come from judges are not elected by popular vote, they're appointed by the government from a shortlist drawn up by some of their peers in the office - but being a judge is still an office it is very hard to get fired from)  ;)

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Oniya

Removing a judge from the bench (elected or not) is still somewhat different from 'firing' them.  (As the curious type, I had to go look it up, and found this.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Blythe

#79
Quote from: kylie on September 08, 2015, 02:32:40 PM
     Huckabee speaking at a rally for Davis:
     
     Oh, if only sending him to jail would ensure people issued the licenses!  Dang it.  ;) 

My thoughts exactly.   ;D

Jag

So...one of my fetlife friends was at the little rally they had for her release today and wrote down her little speech,

"I just want to give god the glory. His people have rallied and you are a strong people. We serve a living god who knows exactly where each and everyone of us is at. Just keep on pressing. Don't let down. Because he is here. He is worthy, he is worthy. I love you guys. Thank you so much."

Video Link

It sounds like to me, that she is saying that God is worthy of us. I thought it was supposed to be that we are worthy of God?

My friend left the rally shaking their head. Apparently Davis' husband is a pretty awful guy too. “I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say. Don’t come knocking on my door.” -Source and something about his Second Amendment rights. As far as I know, no one has gone to their house ever. They pretty much stay at the courthouse. Also, I know a lot of redneck hillbillies (who call themselves that and like it), and many of them are very tolerant of other sexualities.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

gaggedLouise

Or..she is hinting that God engineered her way out of jail, like Paul and Silas being freed by the earthquake and the angel...?  :P

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Jag

Quote from: gaggedLouise on September 08, 2015, 07:41:46 PM
Or..she is hinting that God engineered her way out of jail, like Paul and Silas being freed by the earthquake and the angel...?  :P

I wouldn't put it past her and her crazed fans.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Cycle

Well, she's in deep trouble now.  She's pissed off Survivor.

Don't mess with those 80's pop bands, man...


Iniquitous



So tired of this woman and her shit. Here's to hoping she effs up tomorrow when she goes back to work and ends up right back in jail. That'll put a smile on my face.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Mithlomwen

#85
I still have to shake my head at Ole Mikey.  I wonder if he even realizes he's shooting himself in the foot.  How does he actually think anyone would vote him into the white house when he spouts stuff like that? 

I wish they would quit giving this woman any coverage at all.  I personally believe she's  just doing this for the publicity.  She's had her fifteen minutes of fame, time to move on to other things.

(edited to fix a typo)
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Iniquitous

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 08, 2015, 08:55:06 PM
I still have to shake my head and Ole Mikey.  I wonder if he even realizes he's shooting himself in the foot.  How does he actually think anyone would vote him into the white house when he spouts stuff like that? 

I wish they would quit giving this woman any coverage at all.  I personally believe she's  just doing this for the publicity.  She's had her fifteen minutes of fame, time to move on to other things.

You'd think his support of ole Josh Duggar would have turned people off from him. Sadly, the ones who still support him are the ones who can't think for themselves. Even worse, my parents are in that group. There is a standing rule I have now that any discussion dealing with religion, the nitwit Davis, the Duggars, or these nutjob politicians is off limits. I don't want to hear it and they get pissed when I start pointing out holes in their arguments.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Alhanna

I read somewhere that the reason she's for adding her deputies from issuing as well is because her name is on those licenses and she believes it implies she condones same sex marriage. So the article thought it wouldn't be unreasonable to just remove her name and reprint new licenses.

Here's me: .... *facepalm*

On Facebook, there's a meme that tried to compare her to a flight attendant who is using her Muslim faith to refuse to serve alcohol. However, it's a bit different because Davis is trying to deny others to do their job where this flight attendant was just asking someone else serve.

But now the situation has gotten worse. Apparently there's a judge in Texas refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples.

My head hurts.


The Oath of the Drake

She's real, she's deep, she's logical and mystical. She believes in kindness and oneness and romance. She's sensitive and distant, a warrior, a lover. She believes in road trips to the stars and dancing with the universe. She's fearless and gentle, wondrous and brave. She lives in waterfalls and forests and sunsets and galaxies. She's the artist, the thinker, the poem and the dream. - Creig Crippen

kylie

#88
Quote from: Alhanna on September 09, 2015, 01:13:54 AM

On Facebook, there's a meme that tried to compare her to a flight attendant who is using her Muslim faith to refuse to serve alcohol.

I  agree with you, it's different. Also the airline had previously said it would make a religious accommodation and find others to serve the alcohol. I don't drink alcohol (I just want more airlines to offer soft drinks more frequently), so I don't have a clear feeling of how much burden that imposes. But reportedly, then some other attendants got upset that they had to work around it and then it became an issue for the company to maintain its own terms.

Quote
But now the situation has gotten worse. Apparently there's a judge in Texas refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples.

     That has actually been happening with Davis already. She got sued for denying all marriage apps in an attempt to get around the Supreme decision, but then it just becomes a question of don't people generally have a right to marriage to begin with -- and the same Supreme decision says yes.
     

LtSurge

The only reason marriage has even been such a big topic of contention is that people care about the government recognizing marriage (as if people need a blessing from anyone but each other to be in love and enjoy each other's companionship) and the government offering tax incentives to married people.

Legal marriage also empowers Divorce Courts. Falling out of love is a high statistical probability, and legal marriage is a gamble. The only real winner is the State. Legal Divorce has time and again pitted past lovers against each other in an adversarial system to extract resources and children from each other.

I would argue in a truly egalitarian society, anyone can be married to anyone else and there would be no legal benefits to being married. In fact, "marriage licenses" wouldn't be necessary. Because, again, why do you need anyone else to tell you who to be in love with?

Jag

Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

consortium11

Quote from: Alhanna on September 09, 2015, 01:13:54 AMBut now the situation has gotten worse. Apparently there's a judge in Texas refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples.

If this is the case I think it is, it wasn't that he wouldn't perform marriage ceremonies but that he wouldn't grant divorces (and for the record it was in Tennessee, not Texas). His logic (and I use that term very, very loosely) was that now that the Supreme Court has defined what is a marriage it has overruled state laws on marriage and thus the states must now wait for the Supreme Court to define what isn't a marriage before it can start granting divorces. In effect he argued that issues relating to marriages and marriage law are now outside the jurisdiction of state courts.

That said, as is usually the case in such things, there's more to it then just that. The Obergefell case was simply one reason he gave for refusing the divorce and he added several more (notably that they didn't satisfy the burden for divorce required by the Tennessee statutes and that both parties had legally unclean hands) which would apply if his jurisdiction point failed (full judgement here). I suspect that this was a case where he was always going to refuse the divorce and then tacked on the gay marriage point afterwards rather than one where he would have granted the divorce but refused to because of gay marriage.

Quote from: Cycle on September 08, 2015, 08:34:44 PM
Well, she's in deep trouble now.  She's pissed off Survivor.

Don't mess with those 80's pop bands, man...

I really, really, really dislike bands/composers/similar groups who do this.

Survivor handed over Eye of the Tiger to ASCAP for licensing. Thus anyone who buys the appropriate ASCAP license is perfectly legally entitled to play the song regardless of what any member of Survivor may think (Fox News actually somewhat trolled Adam Levine on that point when he objected to them playing Maroon 5's music). The only claim Survivor may have is under the Lanham Act by arguing that by playing the song at an event for Kim Davis the general public may think that Survivor support and endorse her... but I think that's highly unlikely to succeed.

The reason bands do this is to get positive publicity for themselves and because they know the cost of fighting the law suit is almost certainly going to end up being vastly more expensive then any settlement (be it buying an ASCAP license if there wasn't one previously or any damages under the Lanham Act) and so people settle relatively early (as Newt Gingrich did when Frankie Sullivan pulled the same trick on him) because it saves money and effort. It's no different to situations where companies sue members of the public knowing that even if their case has little to no merit the sheer costs of contesting the case in court mean that the person in question is most likely to settle early and accept the blame.

Sullivan's facebook post reeks of arrogance. He doesn't get to decide who has the rights to play Eye of the Tiger any more... he traded in that right in exchange for getting more money when it became included in ASCAP. If he cared about being able to control who has rights to that song then he would have kept the licensing rights himself rather than farming them out.

kylie

       Okay, I probably wouldn't personally sue her over her choice of theme music...  Though I might also find it hard to object if say, Survivor wants to remove a few dollars from those pockets that seem to want to fund her so well, and put them to use elsewhere.  It wouldn't be anything worse than equally dirty politics, and where a cause is rather aggravating, that isn't such a surprise. 

       If I were the artist, I do suppose I'd get up and say, "That's not the spirit of the song as I intended it and btw that cause they played it to celebrate really sucks."  Just because hey, they took my work and used it for something repugnant and if they can tell people when they think it is applicable, why can't I just as fairly go out in public and do the same with my opinion.  I'd just happen to be the artist, ya know.  What, are they afraid artists might function somehow as competing political figures or something?  How terrible for them then.
     

Oniya

Quote from: kylie on September 09, 2015, 08:52:40 AM
       Okay, I probably wouldn't personally sue her over her choice of theme music...  Though I might also find it hard to object if say, Survivor wants to remove a few dollars from those pockets that seem to want to fund her so well, and put them to use elsewhere.  It wouldn't be anything worse than equally dirty politics, and where a cause is rather aggravating, that isn't such a surprise. 

This actually happened back in 2008.

QuoteArtist: Gretchen Peters
Song: "Independence Day"
Controversy: Peters wrote the 1993 country hit, recorded by Martina McBride and used during Sarah Palin's introduction at a rally. Peters lashed out at the campaign, saying "The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign is using a song about an abused woman as a rallying cry for their Vice Presidential candidate, a woman who would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, is beyond irony. They are co-opting the song, completely overlooking the context and message, and using it to promote a candidate who would set women's rights back decades."
Result: Peters is taking the matter into her own hands: She's donating all of the election season royalties of the song to Planned Parenthood and is encouraging people to make similar donations under the name "Sarah Palin."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stop-using-my-song-republicans-a-guide-to-disgruntled-rockers-20081010#ixzz3lFYjEybH
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Bloodied Porcelain

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 05:23:38 AM
I really, really, really dislike bands/composers/similar groups who do this.

Survivor handed over Eye of the Tiger to ASCAP for licensing. Thus anyone who buys the appropriate ASCAP license is perfectly legally entitled to play the song regardless of what any member of Survivor may think (Fox News actually somewhat trolled Adam Levine on that point when he objected to them playing Maroon 5's music). The only claim Survivor may have is under the Lanham Act by arguing that by playing the song at an event for Kim Davis the general public may think that Survivor support and endorse her... but I think that's highly unlikely to succeed.

The reason bands do this is to get positive publicity for themselves and because they know the cost of fighting the law suit is almost certainly going to end up being vastly more expensive then any settlement (be it buying an ASCAP license if there wasn't one previously or any damages under the Lanham Act) and so people settle relatively early (as Newt Gingrich did when Frankie Sullivan pulled the same trick on him) because it saves money and effort. It's no different to situations where companies sue members of the public knowing that even if their case has little to no merit the sheer costs of contesting the case in court mean that the person in question is most likely to settle early and accept the blame.

Sullivan's facebook post reeks of arrogance. He doesn't get to decide who has the rights to play Eye of the Tiger any more... he traded in that right in exchange for getting more money when it became included in ASCAP. If he cared about being able to control who has rights to that song then he would have kept the licensing rights himself rather than farming them out.

As far as all news stories I've seen have told, they didn't have the legal ability to use the song, and are in violation of copyright law because of that. Survivor isn't sueing at this point, but they are having their attorney draft a C&D order. They are doing this for the same reason that labels and artists can go after DJs, venues, etc that use their music without paying for the right to use it or app.

This is from an article on the issue:

QuoteBroadcasting, in the context of music licensing, means the playback of recorded or live music for groups of people beyond what might be normally expected in a social setting. Legal claims are filed frequently against bookstores, bars, and live music venues that broadcast music without first obtaining a performance license.

There is also a lengthy history of politicians having to pay out to bands for using their music without permission.
I want no ordinary lover. I want a storm. I want sleepless nights and endless conversations at four a.m. I want passion, I want madness.
I want someone who's able to make my whole body shiver from a distance and also pull me close to make sense of all my bones.

~ Bizarre, Beautiful, And Breathtaking ~
~ O/O ~ Seeking ~ A/A ~ Mirrors and Masks ~ Poetry ~
She walked with the universe on her shoulders and made it look like wings.

consortium11

Quote from: kylie on September 09, 2015, 08:52:40 AM
       Okay, I probably wouldn't personally sue her over her choice of theme music...  Though I might also find it hard to object if say, Survivor wants to remove a few dollars from those pockets that seem to want to fund her so well, and put them to use elsewhere.  It wouldn't be anything worse than equally dirty politics, and where a cause is rather aggravating, that isn't such a surprise.

It doesn't quite work like that. ASCAP licensees are rarely bought for individual songs and instead someone pays a flat fee to get access to the entire library; it's not as if they have to pay each time the song is played and then Sullivan gets a cut.

Quote from: Bloodied Porcelain on September 09, 2015, 11:45:51 AM
As far as all news stories I've seen have told, they didn't have the legal ability to use the song, and are in violation of copyright law because of that. Survivor isn't sueing at this point, but they are having their attorney draft a C&D order. They are doing this for the same reason that labels and artists can go after DJs, venues, etc that use their music without paying for the right to use it or app.

This is from an article on the issue:

Assuming someone on Huckabee's staff paid for the ASCAP license (and I'd be utterly staggered if they hadn't got one) then he has every right to use any song in the library (which includes Eye of the Tiger) with only the dubious Lanham Act claim having any merit. Sullivan complaining now is a combination of grandstanding and a cynical cash grab.

Quote from: Bloodied Porcelain on September 09, 2015, 11:45:51 AMThere is also a lengthy history of politicians having to pay out to bands for using their music without permission.

To quote from the article which reiterates my point (emphasis mine):

QuoteAndrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said the campaign had stopped using K’naan’s song out of respect for his political views, even though the campaign bought blanket licenses from two public-performance societies — Ascap and BMI — which pay royalties to members.

Experts on copyright law said such licenses, usually bought by restaurants and other businesses that play recorded music, do protect the campaign from many copyright complaints, but a politician can still be sued under the federal trademark law for false advertising if the use of the song implies that the musician has endorsed the candidate.

The reason the cases get settled is because the cost of fighting them vastly outweighs the settlement amount and because cases tend to drag on long after the election campaign the song was used in has ended so there's little point in continuing to contest them.

Cycle

ASCAP's FAQ on this issue.  Note that is specifically says that an ASCAP license will not shield a campaign from legal liability under the Right of Publicity, Lanham Act, or False Endorsement.

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 01:31:00 PM
a combination of grandstanding and a cynical cash grab.

Describes Huckabee, and Ms. Davis, rather well.


consortium11

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
ASCAP's FAQ on this issue.  Note that is specifically says that an ASCAP license will not shield a campaign from legal liability under the Right of Publicity, Lanham Act, or False Endorsement.

Yes, but I can see no realistic case for any of those three things here if a case was to see court:

Right of Publicity: Huckabee and Davis aren't using the name, image, likeness or any other unequivocal aspects of Frankie Sullivan in particular or Survivor in general.

Lanham Act: Playing Eye of the Tiger having obtained the legal license needed in no way dilutes the trademark.

False Endorsement (which is also a Lanham Act issue): There was no suggestion that Huckabee/Davis stated that Survivor/Frankie Sullivan endorsed or supported them and I really struggle with any argument that states that merely because the song was played at a rally the general public is going to think that Sullivan or Survivor are supporters of the rally, the people in question or its cause.

We get back to the central point; if Sullivan had wanted more control over who had the rights to play his songs then he wouldn't have traded them away. If he cared so much about it then he'd have taken on the extra work (and doubtless lesser income) that came with saying yea or nay to requests himself. He didn't; he traded that responsibility and privilege away but wants to act like he didn't. In a different context we'd be calling this a SLAPP case and rubbishing it but because it's an incredibly dislikeable woman who's done incredibly dislikable things supported by an incredibly dislikeable politician we ignore the fact that this is a lawsuit with almost no grounds for success if it reached court where the main intention is to get a pay-off in settlement by being more hassle then the case is worth.

Alhanna

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 05:23:38 AM
If this is the case I think it is, it wasn't that he wouldn't perform marriage ceremonies but that he wouldn't grant divorces (and for the record it was in Tennessee, not Texas). His logic (and I use that term very, very loosely) was that now that the Supreme Court has defined what is a marriage it has overruled state laws on marriage and thus the states must now wait for the Supreme Court to define what isn't a marriage before it can start granting divorces. In effect he argued that issues relating to marriages and marriage law are now outside the jurisdiction of state courts.

That said, as is usually the case in such things, there's more to it then just that. The Obergefell case was simply one reason he gave for refusing the divorce and he added several more (notably that they didn't satisfy the burden for divorce required by the Tennessee statutes and that both parties had legally unclean hands) which would apply if his jurisdiction point failed (full judgement here). I suspect that this was a case where he was always going to refuse the divorce and then tacked on the gay marriage point afterwards rather than one where he would have granted the divorce but refused to because of gay marriage.

Nope. Not that one.

A quick Google pulled this up:

Judge refuses to perform straight marriage, no outrage


The Oath of the Drake

She's real, she's deep, she's logical and mystical. She believes in kindness and oneness and romance. She's sensitive and distant, a warrior, a lover. She believes in road trips to the stars and dancing with the universe. She's fearless and gentle, wondrous and brave. She lives in waterfalls and forests and sunsets and galaxies. She's the artist, the thinker, the poem and the dream. - Creig Crippen

LisztesFerenc

#99
Quote from: Alhanna on September 09, 2015, 04:17:16 PM
Nope. Not that one.

A quick Google pulled this up:

Judge refuses to perform straight marriage, no outrage

  The article seems to misses the key difference between:

"I refuse to serve your people until my people enjoy the same rights" (Won't marry heterosexual couples until homosexuals can marry)

"I refuse to acknowledge that your people have been given the rights my people have enjoyed for so long" (Won't marry same sex couples full stop)

  Which to me seems rather glaring. Also the first comment on the article points out that judges are not required to grant marriages, whereas county clerks are.

consortium11

Quote from: Alhanna on September 09, 2015, 04:17:16 PM
Nope. Not that one.

A quick Google pulled this up:

Judge refuses to perform straight marriage, no outrage

Snopes article on the judge here.

In short, the judge previously refused to do straight marriages until gay marriages were allowed. Even then it wasn't the same as Davis; while Davis refused to issue marriage licenses and refused to let anyone else issue them either, Parker passed couples along to another judge who would do it.

Parker's "strike" ended in June when gay marriage was legalized and she actually officiated over the first Dallas gay wedding. Now she does all marriages again.

Cycle

#101
Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
Yes, but I can see no realistic case for any of those three things here if a case was to see court:

*shrugs*  Obviously, there are people who disagree with your interpretation of these laws. 

Update: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!


Mithlomwen

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 05:57:22 PM
Update: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!

I don't blame them.  I wouldn't want my name or music associated with those folks either.
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Alhanna

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 04:37:02 PM
Snopes article on the judge here.

In short, the judge previously refused to do straight marriages until gay marriages were allowed. Even then it wasn't the same as Davis; while Davis refused to issue marriage licenses and refused to let anyone else issue them either, Parker passed couples along to another judge who would do it.

Parker's "strike" ended in June when gay marriage was legalized and she actually officiated over the first Dallas gay wedding. Now she does all marriages again.

Ah. I hadn't a chance to research it so thank you.... I'm armed to be ready to argue if it pops up again.


The Oath of the Drake

She's real, she's deep, she's logical and mystical. She believes in kindness and oneness and romance. She's sensitive and distant, a warrior, a lover. She believes in road trips to the stars and dancing with the universe. She's fearless and gentle, wondrous and brave. She lives in waterfalls and forests and sunsets and galaxies. She's the artist, the thinker, the poem and the dream. - Creig Crippen

Cycle

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 09, 2015, 06:51:11 PM
I don't blame them.  I wouldn't want my name or music associated with those folks either.

Alas, it looks like that source may be a fake...  :-(

consortium11

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 05:57:22 PM
*shrugs*  Obviously, there are people who disagree with your interpretation of these laws.

Such as who? I'm not aware of any jurisprudential sources who hold that position. If you've got a spare hour or so it may be worth reading over this article (one that is frequently referenced favourably by the courts in these cases) which sets out the legal framework.

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 05:57:22 PMUpdate: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!

You (and Edgemedia) have been had. The "source" for the story is NBC.com.co (the .co is important), one a new wave of fake media sites that look to hoodwink people and organizations who don't do enough research. There's a story about such sites in general and NBC.com.co specifically here. To take this story in particular there's no professors at Havard Law School called Paul Horner... they're relying on the fact that people are too lazy to check that.

That's not to say that a law suit won't come eventually... if previous history is anything to go by one will come in a pretty brazen cash grab... but it hasn't come yet and certainly hasn't come in the way this story indicates/

Cycle

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 07:27:07 PM
Such as who?

Peterik.  Sullivan.

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 07:27:07 PM
You (and Edgemedia) have been had. The "source" for the story is NBC.com.co (the .co is important), one a new wave of fake media sites that look to hoodwink people and organizations who don't do enough research.

Ah.  Appreciate the personal shot.


consortium11

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Peterik.  Sullivan.

So agreeing with me I have pretty much every judgement the courts have ever made on cases such as these (I'm giving myself some wiggle room but I'm unaware of any that go the other way on these issues) and numerous articles by legal experts on the matter. Disagreeing we me are two musicians who stand to make a tidy profit simply by bringing the case regardless of whether it has any chance of standing on its merits.

Quote from: Cycle on September 09, 2015, 07:56:45 PMAh.  Appreciate the personal shot.

It's not a personal shot as in "haha, you're really stupid". It's a comment about the fact that you did get hoodwinked, I suspect because you didn't put any effort into double checking the story before sharing it. If you had you'd have gone to the source that Edgemedia linked to and seen it was nbc.com.co you may have recalled that site from when it broke the "news" there was going to be a sixth season of Breaking Bad or that a pastor from Virginia (also called Paul Horner...) was sentenced to a year in prison for refusing to marry gay couples, both of which were almost immediately debunked. Even if you weren't aware of nbc.com.co's history if you went onto the site itself you'd almost immediately see that one of its main stories was that Donald Trump had gone on Fox News and accepted a challenge from National Council of La Raza to fight a bear in Mexico. If that hadn't been enough of a giveaway you might have decided to google Paul Horner Harvard Law and found that there's no professor by that name (which can in turn be verified by searching on Harvard Law's website pretty quickly) and that pretty much all references to a Paul Horner come from either nbc.com.co or another fake news site NationalReport.net (as mentioned above).

Websites such as this work in a pretty simple way. They invent stories that relate to topical news items, some more ridiculous than others, and wait for slightly more legitimate websites to become aware of them (frequently tripped up by the official looking NBC name) and share them without fat checking (because in online media these days it's more important to be first then it is to be right) as Edgemedia did. They then wait for people to read those other sites, not do any checking and then share the story themselves (as you did) so they can rake in the ad revenue from people going to the website to see the original story. Pretty much any level of research by either Edgemedia or you would have revealed the story is fake and pretty clearly fake... but in a world where people don't do that it's been highly effective for that site and its ilk.

Cycle

Quote from: consortium11 on September 09, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
It's not a personal shot as in "haha, you're really stupid". It's a comment about the fact that you did get hoodwinked, I suspect because you didn't put any effort into double checking the story before sharing it.

Oh, it is.  Considering that I posted it was a hoax before you did.  But you went ahead and made that post anyway.  This isn't the first time you've attacked me personally in PROC.  And honestly, I'm tired of it.



Blythe

If tempers are feeling a bit high, best to step back for a bit or if there is a personal disagreement, take it to PMs, please.

Jag

I have personally verified that this billboard exists!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis_55f33486e4b042295e3653f0

Not sure how long it'll be up for, but it is there.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Oniya

The one about the goats?  It was put up by the same people that painted the rainbow house across from the WBC.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caehlim

So, not a very serious addition to the discussion but I want to share a comedy skit someone did, telling the story of this to the song 'Cellblock Tango'.

My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Jazra

Enjoyed the humor posted by Caehlim on an artistic level. I'm surprised that Ms. Davis gets  support from conservatives such as the Fox commentator and former governor, Huckleberry. One article I read articulated this position,

Quote"Davis’ position as a government official has some of those same conservative leaders warning that she may not be the ideal figure to rally around. As Rod Dreher, a senior editor at The American Conservative, put it in a recent essay, Davis’ case is “not the hill to die on.” Rather, a line in the sand should be drawn “when they start trying to tell us how to run our own religious institutions — churches, schools, hospitals, and the like — and trying to close them or otherwise destroy them for refusing to accept LGBT ideology.” http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/kim-davis-case-divides-religious-freedom-advocates/

When religious rights interfere with the secular rights of citizens, I don't see that as religious freedom, but rather religious tyranny. And if one needs support  Biblical support for why Kim Davis should follow the clear and unequivocal law of the land, there is always Romans 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Ons & Offs
Absences

Boy, “If I and a slice of pizza fall in the water, which do you save?

Girl, wipes grease off her chin, “Why'd you let my pizza fall in the water?”

Kurzyk

So in a statement, I believe either today or yesterday, Davis said that she will not have her name on any licences issued, but will allow her deputies to issue them.

What does this mean legally? Without Davis's name on the license are they still valid? Her attorneys at one point argued that they weren't, but some are seeing this as a compromise.

Oniya

She's saying that any licenses for gay marriage will state that they were issued 'pursuant to a federal court order'.

Yeah, so basically, a federal judge has ordered that the license be issued.  I think that authorization trumps her signature in every legal sense.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

consortium11

Quote from: Kurzyk on September 14, 2015, 10:29:52 AMWhat does this mean legally? Without Davis's name on the license are they still valid? Her attorneys at one point argued that they weren't, but some are seeing this as a compromise.

Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably:

Quote(1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
(a)An  authorization  statement  of  the  county  clerk  issuing  the  license  for  any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named.

Quote(3) A certificate to be delivered by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk  of  the  religious  society  performing  the  marriage ceremony  to  the  parties married. This certificate shall provide for the entering of:

(a)A  statement  by  the  person  performing  the  marriage  ceremony  or  the  clerk  of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed.  The  statement  shall  include  the  name  and  title  of  the  person performing the ceremony, or the name of the religious society performing the ceremony,  the  names  of  persons  married,  the  date  and  place  of  the  marriage, the names of two (2) witnesses, and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of  the  county  clerk  under  whose  authority  the license  was  issued,  and  the county in which the license was issued;

So if Mrs Davis is saying that she's not going to let her name or authorization be on any of the licensees then technically they don't fulfill the above requirements and so are technically invalid.

In reality I can't see it being an issue; someone would have to pick that fight to begin with and even if they did I can't see a judge upholding it, even if they had to use "creative" legal reasoning to do so. I believe there have been previous cases where a clerk wasn't able to give authority and deputies could do so in their stead so the same may well happen here. In the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them.

Oniya

The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid. Only Davis and her attorneys claim otherwise.
(source)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cassandra LeMay

Quote from: consortium11 on September 14, 2015, 12:05:57 PM
Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably: ...
Is that really a (potential) problem? If I read the source you quoted correctly, doesn't this just deal with the fields that are required to be included in the forms used? Do these sections - in themselves - actually create a requirement for all the fields to be filled in for the documents in question to be valid?
ONs, OFFs, and writing samples | Oath of the Drake

You can not value dreams according to the odds of their becoming true.
(Sonia Sotomayor)

eBadger

Quote from: consortium11 on September 14, 2015, 12:05:57 PM
Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably:

Neither of those involve a signature. 

Quote from: consortium11 on September 14, 2015, 12:05:57 PMIn the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them. they should do their job or quit.

Not to be a jerk here, but it's a pretty simple solution - if you work for the government and you can't morally abide by the legal requirements, you quit or you deal with the repercussions.  You don't get a special law that allows you to not do your job and still get paid. 

consortium11

Quote from: Cassandra LeMay on September 14, 2015, 12:53:43 PM
Is that really a (potential) problem? If I read the source you quoted correctly, doesn't this just deal with the fields that are required to be included in the forms used? Do these sections - in themselves - actually create a requirement for all the fields to be filled in for the documents in question to be valid?

Yep: as a general rule marriage licenses need to be completely filled out to be valid. Moreover digging more into the technical legal side of things, a marriage license needs to be issued by the country clerk (previously of the county where the female resides although I'm not sure what the situation will be in same-sex marriages) and if the county clerk hasn't given their authority then it can't be said to have been issued by them.

Even with that said though I can't see this as even being a potential problem in the real world. As above someone would first have to the pick the fight (which I see as unlikely) and I likewise struggle to see a judge declaring marriages void once it reached court; what's known as the "mischief" method of judicial interpretation (or more accurately the US equivalent) means a judge has the ability to look beyond the strict, technical legal requirements. Moreover it only takes a relatively simple change to the existing law (likely to the current provisions setting out how liscences can be issued while a country clerk it absent) to resolve the issue entirely.

Quote from: eBadger on September 14, 2015, 02:33:04 PM
Neither of those involve a signature.

No, but they require her authority which she has expressly said she is not giving.

Quote from: eBadger on September 14, 2015, 02:33:04 PMNot to be a jerk here, but it's a pretty simple solution - if you work for the government and you can't morally abide by the legal requirements, you quit or you deal with the repercussions.  You don't get a special law that allows you to not do your job and still get paid.

There's a reason I said "least controversial" rather than necessarily "best" or "simplest". A solution that makes no practical difference but allows those who do feel that their religious beliefs or morals are being compromised to take a measure of comfort should avoid issues from both sides. It's not as if religious exemptions are a new or particularly radical development; Sikh's working for the government/military have a long history of them due to their religious dress and appearance requirements and in Minnesota a law which would have required all driver's license photos to show the full head and face was amended to allow exemptions for religious headcoverings (and thus not putting someone in a position where they had to choose between driving and following their religion).

LisztesFerenc

Quote from: consortium11 on September 15, 2015, 05:34:20 AMIt's not as if religious exemptions are a new or particularly radical development; Sikh's working for the government/military have a long history of them due to their religious dress and appearance requirements and in Minnesota a law which would have required all driver's license photos to show the full head and face was amended to allow exemptions for religious headcoverings (and thus not putting someone in a position where they had to choose between driving and following their religion).

  That's not quite the same though, those exceptions effect only the individual. The only way to compromise with Kim Davis though would still result in a gay couple and straight couple being treated differently when they applied for a marriage t her office, even if it is just what name is on the certificate.

Mithlomwen

I heard on the news this morning that she's planning on filing a lawsuit over all of this, stating that her first amendment rights have been violated.
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Jag

Quote from: Mithlomwen on September 15, 2015, 08:01:40 AM
I heard on the news this morning that she's planning on filing a lawsuit over all of this, stating that her first amendment rights have been violated.

Which they haven't been. Though she seems to be enjoying the spotlight and her salary and whatever she thinks she'll get from this frivolous lawsuit.
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

kylie

     Well as long as the current state attorney general is behind them, I don't think there is anyone higher to go to in asking about the definitions under state law. But I worry about the 'as long as' part.     

     More broadly,  it's just discomfitting having a class of licenses marked differently. Unless they were to do it on all certificates regardless of sex maybe... I can imagine someone later rifling through to say "See these were written differently; they get more scrutiny now.   

         The ACLU has expressed concern about the new licenses. I haven't seen anywhere saying they'd decided what steps might be needed, though.
     

Oniya

I am hopeful, because the federal judges are also behind them - and as much as Wallace pissed and moaned about it, desegregation happened once the feds came in.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jag

Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Cassandra LeMay

Quote from: consortium11 on September 14, 2015, 12:05:57 PM
In the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them.
Quote from: consortium11 on September 15, 2015, 05:34:20 AM
There's a reason I said "least controversial" rather than necessarily "best" or "simplest". A solution that makes no practical difference but allows those who do feel that their religious beliefs or morals are being compromised to take a measure of comfort should avoid issues from both sides. ...
I see quite a bit of potential for such a "conscience clause" to lead to controversy, as I think many people would construe it as meaning that any act motivated by religious belief should be treated as a religious act and recognized as such.

Some people might find such an interpretation desirable or even sensible, but I fear the more people are allowed to justify their actions with a simple "I believe in X, therefore I must do Y", even if that goes clearly beyond what might be prescribed and asked for by their religion, the more trouble there will be. People are free to believe whatever they want, but there are good reasons that how they act can be regulated by law. Sometimes I feel the boundary between believe and act is already too thin. Lets not weaken it any further.
ONs, OFFs, and writing samples | Oath of the Drake

You can not value dreams according to the odds of their becoming true.
(Sonia Sotomayor)

Iniquitous

Well, I have been waiting to see this woman's name in the news again. I didn't think it would take long before she reappeared.

Seems she has been altering the marriage licenses that come from her office. She has removed her name, all mention of the county she is clerk for, and references to the clerks. She left only the one clerk's name that has been issuing the licenses as ordered by the judge but not his title or place for his signature, just his initials. This could render all of the licenses issued invalid - and this defiant act pits her against the judge since he ordered her not to interfere with her deputies issuing the licenses.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-deputy-clerk-kim-davis-may-be-violating-judges-order-n430116
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Cycle

She's an idiot.  If she does something to render the licenses invalid, not only will she be violating the Federal Judge's Order, she'll be committing multiple misdemeanors.  KRS 402.990.

Honestly, Kim Davis has an over-inflated sense of self.  The power to marry comes from the State of Kentucky, not her, not her office.  As the County Clerk, she has a duty to the issue marriage licenses.  KRS 402.080.  It is not a power.  It is a responsibility. 

Really, all a County Clerk does is (a) hand out an application form; and (b) record such forms when they are completed.  These are simple clerical tasks.  Kim Davis is not personally condoning, approving, or supporting the marriage of A and B every time someone from her office issues a marriage license.


Garuss Vakarian

Even as a christian I think she got what was coming, there is a clear seperation between church and state. Believe what you want, but you have a job to do. Doesnt matter if your christian, muslim, jewish; She was voted into her position by the community, and did not provide her services to members of the community, as appointed by LAW. She broke that oath, that law, and went to jail. I dont see any injustice here, in what the authorities did. In fact, the authorities were the only people here I see doing their job. *Cue drum beat, ta ta chsshh.*

On the other hand, I do believe there are things that could have been done to make accommodations for her. If restaurants in the uk are forced legally by law, to make accommodations for Muslims, allowing the Muslims to refuse to serve ham or allowing them to chose when they can pray at any given time. (Which is crap actually, they in fact can stay on the clock, as they randomly decide to pray during a lunch rush.) Hell, british government is even considering to issue a mandatory prayer room in most establishments for muslims employees. If britian can accommodate for Muslims, then I am certain america can accommodate for christians. Just have some one along side her be appointed specifically for homosexual marriage licenses, or appoint someone else entirely and fire her.

Cycle

#131
Well, there is actually a very easy accommodation.  All Kim Davis needs to do is nothing.  Literally, nothing.

Stand there and watch Brian Mason, the deputy clerk, issue marriage licenses.  Don't mess with the form.  Don't say you are "withholding" your authorization.  Just literally do absolutely nothing.

Mason, as a deputy clerk, already can do everything Kim Davis can do as County Clerk.  It's built into Kentucky law.  KRS 61.035.  Davis doesn't need to "authorize" anything.  Mason can "authorize" the licenses himself.

Kim Davis is creating problems for herself because she wants to deny same sex couples marriage licenses.  Plain and simple. 


Garuss Vakarian

#132
Well, that is basically what I already said.

QuoteJust have some one along side her be appointed specifically for homosexual marriage licenses, or appoint someone else entirely and fire her.

So ya, she is just creating problems for herself. Thank you for agreeing. That said, the law was shimshambled and forced through the pipeline outside of our congress and without giving her a hot second to think about things. So of coarse she made a brash, and stupid decision without any time to think and ponder her religious beliefs versus her legal duties. She had no time because a federal judge said, "Ya, this shit be legal now." Without congress. I actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married. Yes, I agree with the law. But have people lost the memo on how our government works? Congress is issued a bill or legislation to pass into a law. A judge is only there to interpret guilt, or punishment based on a law. He cant just wave his magic hand and say, "I say it, thuss makeith so!" And it be ok because our president said, "Cool bro. I agree." Never mind the fact that each state can chose wether or not to uphold laws congress issue out, meaning any country wide law that must be upheld by all is bullshit. We have different self governing states for a reason. But know what, white chick is more important then shameful and shady government behavior. It's not like we are supposed to have a democracy or anything right? Any law made outside of our congress, is just playing wrong. I dont care HOW many people vote for it. A system is in place, dont break it, work it.

Point is, when I say accommodations, what I mean is. She literally had this change thrusted upon her, without her religious beliefs considered. Because, fuck Catholics! am I right? (Edit; That part is literally a joke, I dont mean fuck catholics and I dont really think any one is hating on them.) It may be her job to uphold law before church but the state should have thought of her before she had to go to jail for any length of time. This could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.However, on the same note she could of avoided it for herself if she called in a few sick days and tried to talk with her bosses about it.

Cycle

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 21, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
That said, the law was shimshambled and forced through the pipeline outside of our congress and without giving her a hot second to think about things.

Obergefell originally filed suit way back in 2013.  There were intermediate appellate decisions.  The briefs were filed with the Supreme Court early 2015, and oral argument took place in April 2015.  This didn't come out of the blues.

QuoteI actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married.

Actually, that's what's set forth by Article III of the Constitution.  Congress has the power to make laws.  But the Supreme Court has the power to decide if a law is valid--including State laws.  That's been the way things work for hundreds of years.

QuotePoint is, when I say accommodations, what I mean is. She literally had this change thrusted upon her, without her religious beliefs considered. ... This could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.However, on the same note she could of avoided it for herself if she called in a few sick days and tried to talk with her bosses about it.

No no.  She didn't need to call in sick at all.  She could have done nothing.  Literally, just do nothing.  That accommodation was available to her from day one.


eBadger

#134
Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 21, 2015, 10:41:27 PMShe had no time because a federal judge said, "Ya, this shit be legal now." Without congress. I actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married. Yes, I agree with the law. But have people lost the memo on how our government works? Congress is issued a bill or legislation to pass into a law. A judge is only there to interpret guilt, or punishment based on a law. He cant just wave his magic hand and say, "I say it, thuss makeith so!" And it be ok because our president said, "Cool bro. I agree." Never mind the fact that each state can chose wether or not to uphold laws congress issue out, meaning any country wide law that must be upheld by all is bullshit. We have different self governing states for a reason. But know what, white chick is more important then shameful and shady government behavior. It's not like we are supposed to have a democracy or anything right? Any law made outside of our congress, is just playing wrong. I dont care HOW many people vote for it. A system is in place, dont break it, work it.

Your misunderstanding of the American system of government makes my head hurt. 

From the top:

Not just A judge.  A majority of the supreme court judges. 

The judges are nominated by the president, who was in turn popularly elected, so although indirectly they are a manifestation of the only national popular vote in the US.  They are then confirmed by the Senate, comprised of popularly elected representatives; it's not simply a rubber stamp, they can and have rejected nominations. 

A judge's primary role isn't to interpret guilt, and they are only allowed to do so for minor violations.  Guilt is determined by a jury.  A judge's role is to interpret and apply the law (who can speak?  what questions can be asked?  what evidence can be submitted?  and, most critically: what does the law say is legal and not legal?  Which is a very different question from guilt). 

You can try to argue against judicial review as an inherent part of our constitution, but it's been explicitly interpreted as such since 1796.  Nor is the interpretation of the law something we can just skip and do without. 

The states do not have the option to uphold laws as they see fit.  That is laid out explicitly in the bill of rights (10th amendment).  There was also that whole Civil War thing to sort the issue out once and for all. 

We are not supposed to be a democracy.  We are certainly trending that direction ever since Andrew Jackson (who was kind of a dick) but the founders pretty much loathed the entire notion.  Note that you never get to vote on ANY of the laws that congress passes.  We are a republic, in which we have representatives, and those include the judges no less than congress. 

Note also that, however the Supreme Court interprets previous law, Congress has the ability to write new law.  It is completely within their power to pass a new law or amendment banning what the Supreme Court permitted.  The fact that none has been introduced should tell you a LOT about how Congress as a whole feels about the issue. 

Also, the gay marriage ruling IS based on a decision by both congress AND the states: specifically, it was crafted and proposed by the 39th congress in 1866 and became the 14th amendment (equal protection) when ratified by 3/4 of the states as of 1868.  And it was a direct descendant of the Freedman's Bureau Bills enacted by President Lincoln.  So yes, there is a system, every branch had a part, so did the states, and it was followed perfectly. 

By the way, you can thank the same process for the end of segregation in the US, the right to abortion and birth control, the right to a defense attorney, right to inter racial marriage, need to be informed of your rights when arrested, protection of non-citizens under US law, criminalizing sexual harassment, ending sodomy bans and legalizing same-sex conduct. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 21, 2015, 10:41:27 PMThis could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.

Consideration was exactly what occurred across several levels of court and years of proceedings.  Just because you didn't see the news doesn't mean nothing was happening.  This was generally seen as imminent since the 2013 judgment that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Why should people wait further for their rights to be respected? 

Beyond that, why should the state take her personal faith into account?  Why is that more important than the law, or other people's rights?  Do I avoid a speeding ticket when rushing to prayer at a certain time (what if I hit a car or run someone over who interfered with my need to pray?)  Can I avoid paying taxes because I don't recognize the legitimacy of a secular nation?  Perhaps cook a bit of LSD because it helps me connect to my spirit guide?  ...or maybe just not allow any blacks into my restaurant because they're the Cursed Sons of Ham?  Fire all the gays because sodomy?  Have all the pregnant and menstruating women leave stores where I shop because unclean?  How's that accommodation - they can just shop somewhere else for a while, I'm getting my religious beliefs on here. 

There were many ways open for her to practice her own, personal belief in god (like not marrying another woman).  Violating the rights of others is no longer a personal issue, it is a public issue, and for those we are happily not ruled by the church.  The issue is only magnified when a public official violates the law (consider the outrage if a police officer used his authority to shut down a church because it practiced a faith that contradicted his own). 

Honestly, the joy of seeing such a great advance in civil rights has been severely tempered by the tragedy of seeing every argument supporting segregation brought out and dusted off, and eagerly espoused by a nation that should be better by now. 

Sara Nilsson

ebadger.. if i wasnt married... ^^ so.. can I adopt you? that was beautiful

Garuss Vakarian

#136
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress. A president cant make a law permanently, only temporary. A judge cant make a law. CONGRESS decides if the law should go through.  If they wanted the law properly in place, make a legislation and send it to congress, but... Oh ya,Obama doesnt like doing that. He is to busy forcing his legislation through.(Edit: I am speaking of Obama care, which is basically forced through congress on only 51 votes.) A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit. Plain and simple. Never said he was their to determine guilt all the time, so I am not stupid I know how a jury works. But he does interpret guilt sometimes when their is a crime that DOESNT need a jury. I was not wrong, nor needed correction. He interprets the law. AND CAN NOT MAKE ONE. He interprets proper punishment based upon the crime. Honestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Like how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun, but muslim kid gets to go see the president for 'inventing a clock.' When really he grabbed a 70's clock, took it apart, put it together inside a suitcase, and quite obviously had the intention to prank. I know (Edit: That he didnt invent a clock, I am not saying I 'know' he intended to prank. That is simply a opinion. he is 14, it is what 14 year old boys sometimes do, pranks.), because there are actual people with this kind of knowledge, saying it was a old 70's clock on youtube.

QuoteThe states do not have the option to uphold laws as they see fit.  That is laid out explicitly in the bill of rights (10th amendment).  There was also that whole Civil War thing to sort the issue out once and for all.

I was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact. A state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them. States have their own freedom to work the way they wish. and GOVERN THEMSELVES. The president doesnt run every nook and cranny, states as I said, govern, them, selves. Congress only rears it's head in sometimes.

QuoteNote also that, however the Supreme Court interprets previous law, Congress has the ability to write new law.  It is completely within their power to pass a new law or amendment banning what the Supreme Court permitted.  The fact that none has been introduced should tell you a LOT about how Congress as a whole feels about the issue.

Oh god.... *Rubs his temples.* Again, I feel as though your thinking I am against gay rights. I am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all. Though yes, your right. At any, ANY moment congress can say no. But they wont. And I believe they will continue in silence on the matter, not saying no. But not yes either, and this is why. Though, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they agree with the law. It is also just as likely they dont abolish the law because they dont want to be on the wrong side of history in a current culture of progressive Parana's that will eat the very soul of their social life if they even dare to say no to the law. And thus, ruin their political careers. Basically, yes or no is a shot to the foot for every congress man/women. For they have both the aggressive left and the aggressive christians eyeing them at the moment. (Though honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters. Ready to verbally school ya. *Fist bumps Anita Sarkesian.* Girl knows how to handle a mob, gotta give'er that.)

QuoteConsideration was exactly what occurred across several levels of court and years of proceedings.  Just because you didn't see the news doesn't mean nothing was happening.  This was generally seen as imminent since the 2013 judgment that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Why should people wait further for their rights to be respected? 

Beyond that, why should the state take her personal faith into account?  Why is that more important than the law, or other people's rights?  Do I avoid a speeding ticket when rushing to prayer at a certain time (what if I hit a car or run someone over who interfered with my need to pray?)  Can I avoid paying taxes because I don't recognize the legitimacy of a secular nation?  Perhaps cook a bit of LSD because it helps me connect to my spirit guide?  ...or maybe just not allow any blacks into my restaurant because they're the Cursed Sons of Ham?  Fire all the gays because sodomy?  Have all the pregnant and menstruating women leave stores where I shop because unclean?  How's that accommodation - they can just shop somewhere else for a while, I'm getting my religious beliefs on here. 

There were many ways open for her to practice her own, personal belief in god (like not marrying another woman).  Violating the rights of others is no longer a personal issue, it is a public issue, and for those we are happily not ruled by the church.  The issue is only magnified when a public official violates the law (consider the outrage if a police officer used his authority to shut down a church because it practiced a faith that contradicted his own). 

Honestly, the joy of seeing such a great advance in civil rights has been severely tempered by the tragedy of seeing every argument supporting segregation brought out and dusted off, and eagerly espoused by a nation that should be better by now.

At this point you will see humility for I do see I was wrong. Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists. And while not all are like this. Most people assume based on my religion I am immediately a over privileged bigot that hates gays, and hates abortion. But I am pro choice, pro life but more so choice (Therefor a womans body is her own temple. Do what you will. I just feel life should have a chance, but not gonna force that on any one.) I honestly get over defensive sometimes, but I do understand that my views dont conform with the rest of society these days. I actually just wish sometimes people would listen. Learning isnt an echo chamber of the same ideas, thats not how social science should work. It is a plethora of ideas, people debating their own opinions but also taking on another's perspective and pondering it. Even if you dont agree with it. Thats how social learning is done, but with the knee jerk reactions every one. Including me sometimes, give. Not many really learn anything any more. Becouse we are so worried about being right we forget we may be wrong sometimes. Edit: Im not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

Edit: Also I went off subject actually. So also sorry about that, lets continue to speak of Kim Davis. This is not about the law, but more so how she broke the law.

Caehlim

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMLike how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun

Actually the child was suspended, resumed schooling, remained at school for the rest of the year and was then transferred by his parents to another school for his next year's schooling. He was neither kicked out nor ever faced any sort of charges, beyond school disciplinary procedures. The current appeal was from the child's family attorney Robin Ficker, challenging to have the suspension removed from the child's school records. However the hearing examiner, Andrew Nussbaum, denied this appeal stating that;

“As much as the parents want this case to be about a ‘gun,’ it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior and for whom the school had attempted a list of other strategies and interventions before resorting to a suspension. Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making ‘meow’ cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same.”
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Garuss Vakarian

#138
Quote from: Caehlim on September 23, 2015, 02:55:04 AM
Actually the child was suspended, resumed schooling, remained at school for the rest of the year and was then transferred by his parents to another school for his next year's schooling. He was neither kicked out nor ever faced any sort of charges, beyond school disciplinary procedures. The current appeal was from the child's family attorney Robin Ficker, challenging to have the suspension removed from the child's school records. However the hearing examiner, Andrew Nussbaum, denied this appeal stating that;

“As much as the parents want this case to be about a ‘gun,’ it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior and for whom the school had attempted a list of other strategies and interventions before resorting to a suspension. Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making ‘meow’ cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same.”

Oh, well my knowledge on Poptart kid is completely from the grapevine so I didnt know that. Only looked up mister Muhamid (Not a racist slur, his last name is muhamid I believe.) due to the fact his case involved a possible bomb threat rather then Poptart kids case. Where I just laughed and said, "Wow teachers are to progressive these days, reminds me of that girl sent home for a 80's wonderwomen lunchbox becouse it was degrading to women. Ha ha" And brushed it off. lol.

Oh heres that lunchbox that sent the girl home:



Though maybe in that teachers head, she thought it was demeaning to women becouse it stated lovely as Aphrodite first, valuing buety over mind. Or something equally as ridiculous. I dont care how 'offensive' you think it is, if it is not WW slaying a Minotaur with blood everywhere then the kid shouldn't have missed a day of learning over the dang thing.

Caehlim

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 03:08:59 AMOnly looked up mister Muhamid (Not a racist slur, his last name is muhamid I believe.) due to the fact his case involved a possible bomb threat rather then Poptart kids case.

Yes, Ahmed Mohamed is the child's name. I've been attempting to find more information about whether the story about the clock being a re purposed 1970s clock is true or not, but have yet to find any reliable sources.

QuoteWhere I just laughed and said, "Wow teachers are to progressive these days, reminds me of that girl sent home for a 80's wonderwomen lunchbox becouse it was degrading to women. Ha ha"

Actually the unsubstantiated claim of the Redditor who published those pictures was that the lunchbox was considered too violent, with superheroes considered to "solve their problems using violence"

The letter


However I should note that even the original version of this story is completely unverified. You can see the Snopes page on it for details.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Garuss Vakarian

#140
Well here allow me to help. Here is a article on the Daily Beast, and after reading it the article was confirmed in my opinion by a youtube video I can not fined again. But the video did get exposure on hanity, sometime before or after a kid was brought onto Hanitty over a viral video about Mohamed's clock.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html . Basically Engineers at first glance AND upon further analysis determined the clock to be a re purposed one. Malicious intent to be assumed, if not an intentional hoax then at the very least trying to get extra credit over something I can do with what little engineering skills I have.

Also thanks for confirming I partially got the name right. Mohamed, not muhamid. >_< Lol.

Edit: Again however, off topic lol.

Edit: Also found the video, it is actually linked into the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEmSwJTqpgY

Caehlim

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 03:48:25 AMWell here allow me to help.

Thankyou, it was so annoying trying to search for that since it was a "hoax bomb" so searching for it being a hoax brought up all the original articles. I had a look at the article and the original article on Artvoice.com that it was referring to (here). I have to admit that it's fairly persuasive.

My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

LisztesFerenc

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMSorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists.

  Where as atheist have to grow up in a country where:

The money says "In God we trust", which is the national motto of the united states.

Despite representing about 16% of the population in recent years, and by most studies on the topic that I know of having on average a higher IQ than a religious people, no president has ever been confirmed as having any belief other than Christian, and only 3% of the Senate.*

Politicians are sworn in on the bible. In court people swear to tell the truth with their hand on the bible.

The Pledge of Allegiance references "One nation under God"

  So if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Iniquitous

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AM
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress. A president cant make a law permanently, only temporary. A judge cant make a law. CONGRESS decides if the law should go through.  If they wanted the law properly in place, make a legislation and send it to congress, but... Oh ya,Obama doesnt like doing that. He is to busy forcing his legislation through.(Edit: I am speaking of Obama care, which is basically forced through congress on only 51 votes.) A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit. Plain and simple. Never said he was their to determine guilt all the time, so I am not stupid I know how a jury works. But he does interpret guilt sometimes when their is a crime that DOESNT need a jury. I was not wrong, nor needed correction. He interprets the law. AND CAN NOT MAKE ONE. He interprets proper punishment based upon the crime. Honestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Like how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun, but muslim kid gets to go see the president for 'inventing a clock.' When really he grabbed a 70's clock, took it apart, put it together inside a suitcase, and quite obviously had the intention to prank. I know (Edit: That he didnt invent a clock, I am not saying I 'know' he intended to prank. That is simply a opinion. he is 14, it is what 14 year old boys sometimes do, pranks.), because there are actual people with this kind of knowledge, saying it was a old 70's clock on youtube.

I was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact. A state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them. States have their own freedom to work the way they wish. and GOVERN THEMSELVES. The president doesnt run every nook and cranny, states as I said, govern, them, selves. Congress only rears it's head in sometimes.

Oh god.... *Rubs his temples.* Again, I feel as though your thinking I am against gay rights. I am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all. Though yes, your right. At any, ANY moment congress can say no. But they wont. And I believe they will continue in silence on the matter, not saying no. But not yes either, and this is why. Though, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they agree with the law. It is also just as likely they dont abolish the law because they dont want to be on the wrong side of history in a current culture of progressive Parana's that will eat the very soul of their social life if they even dare to say no to the law. And thus, ruin their political careers. Basically, yes or no is a shot to the foot for every congress man/women. For they have both the aggressive left and the aggressive christians eyeing them at the moment. (Though honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters. Ready to verbally school ya. *Fist bumps Anita Sarkesian.* Girl knows how to handle a mob, gotta give'er that.)

At this point you will see humility for I do see I was wrong. Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists. And while not all are like this. Most people assume based on my religion I am immediately a over privileged bigot that hates gays, and hates abortion. But I am pro choice, pro life but more so choice (Therefor a womans body is her own temple. Do what you will. I just feel life should have a chance, but not gonna force that on any one.) I honestly get over defensive sometimes, but I do understand that my views dont conform with the rest of society these days. I actually just wish sometimes people would listen. Learning isnt an echo chamber of the same ideas, thats not how social science should work. It is a plethora of ideas, people debating their own opinions but also taking on another's perspective and pondering it. Even if you dont agree with it. Thats how social learning is done, but with the knee jerk reactions every one. Including me sometimes, give. Not many really learn anything any more. Becouse we are so worried about being right we forget we may be wrong sometimes. Edit: Im not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

Edit: Also I went off subject actually. So also sorry about that, lets continue to speak of Kim Davis. This is not about the law, but more so how she broke the law.

Bold part is mine...

Let me see if I can explain this so you'll understand. There was laws concerning the protections that a married couple possess, benefits a married couple have, etc. These did NOT extend to same sex couples who were barred from having the civil union known as "marriage" because they happened to be two men or two women. What the Supreme Court did is sit down and decide that it is wrong to bar a couple from those same protections, benefits, etc just because the couple happened to be two men or two women. They did not "pass a law" or "make a law". They, and this is the key word here, interpreted the law of the land to include homosexuals.

Which is just and fair.

People need to get over this kick that the Supreme Court passed a law. They did not. They interpreted an already existing law to include the discriminated against group.

And I hear all the time how the world is waging war against Christians - to the point that it makes me sick. Do you see Atheists out in force screaming about how something is a sin? Do you see Pagans refusing to pass out marriage licenses to gay couples? Do you see Wiccans out demanding that we put their deities back in the government? Nope. Just Christians. I am honestly coming to the point of believing that most Christians want to be the maligned group - the mistreated - the victims. "There's a war on Christianity!" "There's a war on Christmas!" (Pagan holiday there btw - just in case you didn't know) "You took prayer from the schools!"

If Christians stopped trying to force everyone to believe like them maybe they'd stop feeling persecuted.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Garuss Vakarian

#144
The subject is not about a war on christians, but on KIM DAVIS. I didnt mean for how I feel to pull you two off subject but by all means do go back to it. In fact because we have the judge thing being commented on again, even if it is based upon my own comment. (And your rebuttal is fairly well pointed out about that miss.) I am bowing out. It is fairly obvious I am pulling people away from the actual discussion. So please, forget anything I said and move on, sorry.  If you feel you must comment me back on this, pm me, we need to stop talking about these kinds of things here. And talk about kim davis, it is about her and what she did. Not the gay marriage law, how it was past, and the feelings of my fellow, admittedly over sensitive Christians. (Please god dont think I am overtly sensitive like them. >_< I actually take hits fairly well.)

Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 23, 2015, 06:51:32 AM
  Where as atheist have to grow up in a country where:

The money says "In God we trust", which is the national motto of the united states.

Despite representing about 16% of the population in recent years, and by most studies on the topic that I know of having on average a higher IQ than a religious people, no president has ever been confirmed as having any belief other than Christian, and only 3% of the Senate.*

Politicians are sworn in on the bible. In court people swear to tell the truth with their hand on the bible.

The Pledge of Allegiance references "One nation under God"

  So if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Dude, there are a number of things going on in the world against christians. Though that is not the case we need to be talking about. I do understand how atheism gets a bad rep from people, but do you honestly think atheists dont knock down on christians? It's a hungry ideological world out there, and everyone thinks their right and every one else is wrong. Wow, so the country was made by christian- oh wait. They weren't ACTUALLY christian, believe it or not most our founding fathers were as close to atheist as you can get at the time. Hence the fact that religion, and god comes SECOND to law and government. If this country were truly made to be all christianed up as you say, then there would be our god above law and government. (Look up our atheist founding fathers, while your at it, look up christian revisionists. No I am not even trying to be mean, seriously look it up it's mind blowing information. I found it fun to discover.) The motto is a hit or miss thing use it or dont, your choice. No one said you had to use the motto or your un american. In fact, christian revisionists any one? Aside from the fact that we make you swear an oath unto god, which is more so for legal reasons rather then believing in god. Your just mainly swearing to tell the truth under a court of law, think of it more so as the phrase I swear to god I am telling the truth, and your good. Our country is made up to focus on a government for the people, by the people. Under god? Well, look at those revisionists I spoke of before. I think that part has a little to do with them. So ya, looks like the things are stacked against christians being, dun dun dun... The ones forcing their beliefs. Edit: But atheists try to force their ideas to, just not as aggressively. *Billboards, youtube, etc.) Its not more so forced as it is opinions being thrown out their more, but there are a fair number out their aggressively being atheist.

 
QuoteSo if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Well, I dont know. You tell me how they feel? I dont presume to understand who you are, or they are. I do say this is a smart answer, perhaps I am far wiser then you originally anticipated? Lol.

Iniquitous: I dont pretend what other Christians do is pretty. I in fact find it impossible to have a dialogue with my mom, because... Get this. Believe it or not, I am actually unchristian. OH ya, I am actually treated like an idiot by both sides, anywhere I go. Wooohooo! Because I have faith in god, but also disagree with that tid bit of same sex, and believe in pro choice. As you can imagine I am a highly unpopular person in social circles! Yay for me. I m not trying to put a pitty me here, really I am not. If there is a war, We started it. The problem I find is, people judge me on my faith alone, judge me if one or two opinions do not mirror their own ideology, so I am automatically an idiot even if I share a lot of the same opinions. Christians are judged as a whole. Atheists are judged as a whole. Feminists are definitely being judged as a whole right now! Dam are they being judged, just look at that new southpark episode and the online war surrounding it. Something I mainly want to point out is, we shouldnt judge each other as a whole because we disagree with a few things. Sorry if calling it a war on christians angers you, but it's how a lot feel. So is how someone feels really going to disgust you? Personally id suggest not letting such things bother you, though I should in turn reflect on this whole post and say the same thing to myself. Not let these things bother me. The thing is, a lot do feel they are under threat. For a few logical, and many ilogical reasons. But they do, cant change that. As for me, I only used it as a phrase. I dont personally feel there is a war on Christians as a whole, the use of such rhetoric was ill placed on my part. It is only so much that my faith is as of late a subject of defining me. Even though people shouldnt assume it does. Which is funny as hell actually, the same people who fight to try and stop oppression and bias, are fucking bias to me. For being a white, christian, over-privileged male that is ciss scum. Well, get told it enough times it has to be true right ?  :o . Sadly most atheists I meet are big headed, think they know everything and treat me like a lowly mind un deserving of their presence. In fact, I go out of my way to keep my faith out of a conversation, believe it or not atheists bring it up to me almost all the time trying to tell me how I am wrong. Most want the conversation. But not to have discourse, but to try and verbally 'serve' me. Id love to make an atheist friend, who wants to actually talk with civility. Assuming you are atheist id appreciate you being a first. You seem highly articulate ^_^ .  Oh! How about that Bill Nye debate. ;) Served that dude hardcore, always hated it when fellow christians try to throw in ridiculous creationist theories on evolution. Gah. >_< . Actually have my own thoughts on the matter in case your interested.

QuoteDo you see Atheists out in force screaming about how something is a sin? Do you see Pagans refusing to pass out marriage licenses to gay couples? Do you see Wiccans out demanding that we put their deities back in the government?

No but I do see muslims beheading Christians, but honestly they are a threat to you to. Us being the great satan and all! :P HEY! Maybe we should join forces? lol. Listen Christians are no saint, in fact they also did the Inquisition if you want to point that out. Oh! Dont forget the crusades ;) . But neither are wickens (Religios practices being barbaric at the time of it's creation.) or Muslims. (Read their bible. Sharia law, real shit, pretty scary ideas. Befriend your neighbor, so you can kill them if they dont worship Alla. Thats the jist of that part of the Muslim bible. Also to this day the real misogynist society demeaning women, not america or the UK.) While we are at it look at any group in human history, including atheists and yes feminism. And tell me it doesnt have it's bad eggs saying, advocating, and doing fucked up shit. If you actually do think atheists or feminists are innocent. No true scotsman fallacy. See me for one second say a real christian wouldn't do this or that? Nope, because I recognize our faults. Have this whole time.

Actually one final note. Did one solitary, insignificant comment really throw you two in such discord? Away from the subject at hand? Gosh, I know I am not innocent but I did try to pull things back before you both comented. If you dont like the idea of war on christians so much send a lengthy pm next time. We are legitimately throwing this thread out of the atmosphere of it's original purpose. lol. No seriously I dont mind continuing, but not here. Pm, or make a thread. Ill be answering back so no worries. ^^

LisztesFerenc

#145
Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 09:37:38 AMWell, I dont know. You tell me how they feel? I dont presume to understand who you are, or they are.

  Try and imagine you were in such a situation. You lived in a country were the money bore the saying "There is no God, we must trust ourselves and each other". Christians were underrepresented in the Senate, the % of Christian there being a fifth of what the national %-tage was, and the national motto was "No Gods, only mortals" (it's a motto, you can just choose not to use it).

  This is what its like being an Atheist in a nation like the US with all the references to Christianity how do you think you would feel in the above scenario? Here's the thing: not mentioning God isn't atheist, its agnostic at best, neutral. Mentioning God (or indeed Gods) as not existing is atheist.

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 09:37:38 AMYour just mainly swearing to tell the truth under a court of law, think of it more so as the phrase I swear to god I am telling the truth, and your good. Our country is made up to focus on a government for the people, by the people.

  So why isn't it "Before this court, I swear to tell the truth"? Why does God and the bible need to be brought into it?

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 09:37:38 AMDude, there are a number of things going on in the world against christians.

  I know, but you referenced feeling being attacked because you were surrounded by leftist ideology in Uni, not because of what was happening in other countries.

Cycle

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AM
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. ...  A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit.

Again, the Supreme Court was not penning legislation here.  Rather, when it handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, it struck down a (group of) laws as unconstitutional.

The central issue in Obergefell was a conflict between two laws:  a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage, and the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court found the 14th Amendment trumped the state law.  And so, the state law bans on same-sex marriages were invalidated.  This left a situation where there is no ban on same-sex marriages, meaning that said marriages can proceed.

What the Supreme Court did was and is perfectly within the scope of Article III. 

QuoteI was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact.

This is incorrect.  Each state can make certain laws, but must all abide by Federal laws--as well as the Constitution.  Each state operates not as an individual, but as part of a whole, operating for the whole.  Hence the "United" part of U.S.A.


Garuss Vakarian

#147
Quote from: LisztesFerenc on September 23, 2015, 09:53:16 AM
  Try and imagine you were in such a situation. You lived in a country were the money bore the saying "There is no God, we must trust ourselves and each other". Christians were underrepresented in the Senate, the % of Christian there being a fifth of what the national %-tage was, and the national motto was "No Gods, only mortals" (it's a motto, you can just choose not to use it).

  This is what its like being an Atheist in a nation like the US with all the references to Christianity how do you think you would feel in the above scenario? Here's the thing: not mentioning God isn't atheist, its agnostic at best, neutral. Mentioning God (or indeed Gods) as not existing is atheist.

  So why isn't it "Before this court, I swear to tell the truth"? Why does God and the bible need to be brought into it?

  I know, but you referenced feeling being attacked because you were surrounded by leftist ideology in Uni, not because of what was happening in other countries.

Against my better judgement I cant help but respond, but do please continue this in pm. This is not about Kim Davis, even if we are talking about her religion.

Any way.

As I can imagine it would be pretty crappy. Hmm, do you remember me bringing up the Christian Revisionists? I think it is quite pertinent to bring up. They have a lot to do with how christianity got so ingrained in government. Christians as a whole just played ball. So, a world without those revisionists would probably see a country that meets things fairly half way, as it is a country where we both halve a right to exist.

Point taken, though I was mainly using it as I said, as a phrase or expression to express how I feel I am being treated. But it came off as rhetoric. As I stated it was poorly placed. Honestly I dont feel their is a war on christians, in this country at least.



Cycle: OMG, I need to stop commenting on what I started. >_< Has nothing to do with Kate. Pm me if you want to continue. Thank you. Sorry! Really all my fault for exploding things out of context, not theirs. T_T . To comment back you simply just circle jerked from what I said about states governing themselves and twisted it against what I was saying in spite of us both saying, literally, the exact same thing. States Govern themselves, but work to form the whole. Literally, basically, already said that. But again, off point. Pm me, I implore you. I implore all! Kate davis. Please read subject tag, Kim Davis. I know she is such a bore to talk about, and what she did is really crappy but you all knew what you were getting into in joining this discussion! So let's talk about her, as much as we would like to go on fit's in alternate directions, we should talk about her.... Man things are gonna be boring again. Maybe she is not so special to talk about after all? Lol.

eBadger

#148
Quote from: Sara Nilsson on September 22, 2015, 05:00:29 AM
ebadger.. if i wasnt married... ^^ so.. can I adopt you? that was beautiful

Yes!  You would be the coolest mom. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMA Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress.

That's correct, judges don't make laws; I'm glad you, me, and the supreme court all agree on that.  As I stated above, the law in question is the 14th amendment, passed by congress, ratified by enough states to become law as of 1868 (and incidentally by Ohio in 1867).  It states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The issue was that one member of a same sex couple, married in Maryland, was terminally ill.  Ohio would not recognize the marriage as valid, due to their ban on same sex marriage.  That interfered with various issues from medical care to inheritance to simple memorials.  Obergefell therefore sued to have the ban overturned and his rights as a married partner restored.  The question put to the supreme court was not creating a new law, but whether denying the right of marriage to homosexuals violated their equal protection under the law.  Their conclusion was that yes, it did. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMA president cant make a law permanently, only temporary.

I won't go into depth on this, but it's incorrect.  An executive order has the force of law (the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order) and no inherent expiration (the FBI was created by executive order, for instance). 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMHonestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Is this an 'actively going to school' or an 'I intend to some day' sort of thing?

I'd respond to the rest of your objection, but you did it nicely yourself:

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMA state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them.

And that's exactly what happened. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMI am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all.

I'm sorry, this is...ah!  This line is why I HAD to respond to you.  As a historian, this makes my eyes bleed a little. 

The law is the 14th Amendment.  It's five paragraphs long, and took three years to complete.  It ended the Civil War and re-unified the nation.  It ended slavery.  It signaled that changes would have to be made to the very fabric of society, but also made clear that the south would be readmitted as equals.  It has served as the legal basis for nearly every advance in civil rights since, and proves to still be at the forefront 150 years later.  The equal rights clause drives directly to the heart of what is America; that every person is equal, that all have the same fundamental right to life, liberty, property and protection, without qualification or prevarication. 

Most of the Constitution is election procedures, federalism, checks and balances; all brilliant, but fuck it all.  The soul of our ideals and philosophies is the 14th Amendment.   

So no, it is not a damn bit shoddy. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMThough honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters.

Yes, wanting to get married.  Brutal, that.  Merciless killers, like the Roman gladiators of old.  Christianity, on the other hand, has its hands completely clean of blood.  Arf arf. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMSorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you.

A quick litmus test for this sort of thing is to reverse the situation.  If a gay bureaucrat banned marriage for everyone who is Christian, citing religious issues, would that be acceptable? 

If there's a war on, it's because one side of the civil rights conflict is constantly putting the Christian Bible at the forefront of every debate.  Were I Christian, I would take issue with them, not the left. 

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AMIm not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

No need to apologize for defending her; trying to see the best in someone is a fine quality, and speaking up when you perceive injustice is admirable.  We need more of that.  I just disagree with your reasoning and don't feel you have a good understanding of the facts. 

Sabre

Quote from: Garuss Vakarian on September 23, 2015, 09:37:38 AM
The subject is not about a war on christians, but on KIM DAVIS.

The two seem inextricably linked by now, given her audience and support. Christian revisionism, dominionism, or Christian nationalism, however one might describe it, has adopted this cause as part of a narrative of a war on Christianity in America.

QuoteThe motto is a hit or miss thing use it or dont, your choice. No one said you had to use the motto or your un american.

In fact it was adopted repeatedly in US history as a statement about what is and is not American, first against the Confederates and then against the Soviets. It again was confirmed after the invasion of Iraq, and in 2011 during the heated debate over Florida's Dixie County Courthouse's Ten Commandments monument. The motto has a history of affirmation of what it is to be American that makes it unique.

QuoteSo ya, looks like the things are stacked against christians being, dun dun dun... The ones forcing their beliefs. Edit: But atheists try to force their ideas to, just not as aggressively. *Billboards, youtube, etc.) Its not more so forced as it is opinions being thrown out their more, but there are a fair number out their aggressively being atheist.

If we took the national motto mentioned above as an example, only something like 6 representatives voted against it. The difference between atheist, or really any minority or progressive group, and Christian projection of belief is that the latter can legislate, whereas the former must rely on judicial review.

QuoteSorry if calling it a war on christians angers you, but it's how a lot feel. So is how someone feels really going to disgust you?

That is the whole point of calling such things 'war' in the first place. It draws a line in the sand, manipulating feelings for a militant response, and categorizes an enemy, in this case as aggressors. For minorities who felt besieged by the majority, it's a categorical reversal of their whole world view.

Quoteor Muslims. (Read their bible. Sharia law, real shit, pretty scary ideas. Befriend your neighbor, so you can kill them if they dont worship Alla. Thats the jist of that part of the Muslim bible.

Before asking others, are you sure you've read it yourself? Or, like the very phrase 'war on Christianity', have you taken someone's word as gospel, so to speak?

Cycle

No, the Pope did not endorse Kim Davis.  From the Vatican:

Quote
The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion. In order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired I am able to clarify the following points:

Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.

The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.


eBadger

Didn't endorse her, explicitly, but he met with her amiably - which is certainly a message.  It also ties into his earlier comments about the right of government worker to object. 

Either he's very ignorant of a major social issue in the US, which I don't believe, or it was intentional. 

Cycle

#152
Quote
Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability.

Also:

Quote
“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin wrote. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct some gross misrepresentations of what had happened. It shows that Pope Francis met with many people on the trip, and that she was simply another person who he tried to be kind to.”

And:

Quote
Earlier Friday, [Vatican assistant spokesman, Rev. Thomas] Rosica said that Francis had not invited Davis to a gathering that included dozens of people and suggested that the meeting may have been manipulated by her and her lawyer.

Asked if she had exploited the encounter to promote her beliefs, he replied, “One could say that.”


More:

QuoteOne Vatican official said there was "a sense of regret" that the pope had ever seen Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk

The people the Pope did grant a "real audience" to?  A gay man and his partner.

Quote
The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.


Edit:  missing link fixed.  Thanks!

TheGlyphstone

Your last link there doesn't go anywhere, Cycle.

TaintedAndDelish

Quote from: Cycle on October 02, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.

Some context on the current pope's views on homosexuality. It seems he's actually pro - unlike his evil predecessor pope Palpatine Benedict.
http://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/


Cassandra LeMay

Quote from: eBadger on October 02, 2015, 01:51:16 PM
....  It also ties into his earlier comments about the right of government worker to object.

I take it you may be referring to this?
QuoteWhen asked specifically if he was including government workers in his response, Pope Francis responded: “It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”
Source: Washington Post

If so, context, as so often, is important here. He was talking about conscientous objection and emphasising that it should be a universal, human right with no exceptions, something that shold apply to everyone, government employee or not. But conscientous objection is a term with a specific meaning, namely the right to refuse military service if it runs counter to one's religious or personal believes. Stating that that should apply to government workers is far different from supporting the view that a government employee should have the right to stop discharging their duty in specific situations because of a religious belief outside military service contexts.
ONs, OFFs, and writing samples | Oath of the Drake

You can not value dreams according to the odds of their becoming true.
(Sonia Sotomayor)

Oniya

However, if I remember my history correctly, conscientious objectors in the military were placed in positions where their duties would not interfere with their religious beliefs.  Meaning that if it is her religious belief that gay people should not receive marriage licenses, she should be put in a job where her duties do not include giving licenses to gay people.

Which is the compromise that many people have suggested, and which she has consistently rejected.  (Hell, I'd do her job for half price!)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cassandra LeMay

Quote from: Oniya on October 03, 2015, 01:24:27 PM
However, if I remember my history correctly, conscientious objectors in the military were placed in positions where their duties would not interfere with their religious beliefs.
Yes and no. I think during WWI conscientous objectors were all placed in non-combat military roles, whereas during WWII there was also the option of civilian public service for those who objected against any participation in military activities, even in a non-combat role. Not sure what the situation was during the Vietnam War.
ONs, OFFs, and writing samples | Oath of the Drake

You can not value dreams according to the odds of their becoming true.
(Sonia Sotomayor)

BitterSweet

Another significant difference between conscientious objectors - at least in the past military activities - is that they did not prevent others from doing their job/serving in the military as they wanted to/etc.  Davis is, specifically and intentionally preventing others from exercising their legal rights - which is a huge difference.  She has every right to practice her religion, no matter how odious, she does not have the right to impose those religious practices on others, especially when she represents the civil government.

Jag

Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

eBadger

Quote from: Cassandra LeMay on October 03, 2015, 02:21:19 AM
I take it you may be referring to this?Source: Washington Post

If so, context, as so often, is important here. He was talking about conscientous objection and emphasising that it should be a universal, human right with no exceptions, something that shold apply to everyone, government employee or not. But conscientous objection is a term with a specific meaning, namely the right to refuse military service if it runs counter to one's religious or personal believes. Stating that that should apply to government workers is far different from supporting the view that a government employee should have the right to stop discharging their duty in specific situations because of a religious belief outside military service contexts.

That comment is what I was referring to, but no, I don't believe your interpretation is correct.  Yes, the term Conscientious Objector usually applies to refusing military service (and has been stretched to breaking for the Davis situation, where she is expected to perform the duties of the office she ran for, rather than refusing an appointment she doesn't want).  However, a reading of the transcript shows a very clear question (emphasis mine):

QuoteTerry Moran, ABC News: Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?

Pope Francis: I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying 'this right that has merit, this one does not.' It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren't permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

(A CNA editor notes that "Chancon Roland" is a reference to a poem, "Song of Roland in which Crusaders forced Muslims to choose between being baptized or being killed by the sword. The Pope says they were not allowed to choose conscientious objection.")

Terry Moran, ABC News: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

Note that Moran even followed it up with a second question to affirm the answer. 

I appreciate that many want Francis to be The Pope, and also that he has made great strides forward in many ways.  He is not a completely backward bigot and is worthy of respect for what he has done.  However, the message has been made pretty clear that while he emphasizes respect, he will not support including LGBT persons into the Catholic church. 

TaintedAndDelish

#161
I'm not seeing any of the major news outlets reporting this so far, just a lot of smaller, fringe news sites. It could be that it's just very fresh news.


Liberty Counsel is definitely listed on their website:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/liberty-counsel

Edit:  I found another article stating the the Associated Press reported this on Sunday.
http://spectrum.suntimes.com/news/10/155/3534/liberty-counsel-hate-group

Oniya

Quote from: eBadger on October 05, 2015, 05:25:12 PM
I appreciate that many want Francis to be The Pope, and also that he has made great strides forward in many ways.  He is not a completely backward bigot and is worthy of respect for what he has done.  However, the message has been made pretty clear that while he emphasizes respect, he will not support including LGBT persons into the Catholic church.

However, issuing them a marriage license is not the same as including them in the Catholic church.  It is providing them with documentation for purely secular purposes (spousal privileges in hospitals, next of kin rights, the ability to be taxed as a married couple, etc.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

eBadger

Quote from: Oniya on October 05, 2015, 06:48:10 PM
However, issuing them a marriage license is not the same as including them in the Catholic church.  It is providing them with documentation for purely secular purposes (spousal privileges in hospitals, next of kin rights, the ability to be taxed as a married couple, etc.)

I'm not sure what point you're making here.  Do you feel he's more likely to welcome LGBT into the church than support secular equality?

Oniya

I'm saying that his views on accepting them into the church is something which affects only a portion of LGBT couples applying for marriage licenses.  The fact that he doesn't 'welcome them into the church' doesn't and shouldn't affect whether they are entitled to the secular documentation that Kim Davis is interfering with.

I'd imagine that full acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church is something that will take a lot longer than the Supreme Court decision.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

eBadger

Of course.  Steps could be made, though; thus far he hasn't been very impressive on that front, following one non-judgmental flash of hope. 

And yes, I realize it only affects a portion of those applying for licenses: but he's the pope, it's his portion.  He's obviously not going to change our government.  He can, however, change the church, which has been the focal point of much of the anti-gay rights movement.  Removing that support would be tremendous. 

Let me put it another way.  He is the one person in the world who can, with a single announcement, make a huge step forward for the civil rights of millions of people across the entire world.  I find it heartbreaking that, despite being a generally good person, when the opportunity came over and over to take that step, to even feel it out, he chose not to do so. 

Oniya

Quote from: eBadger on October 06, 2015, 12:04:39 AM
Let me put it another way.  He is the one person in the world who can, with a single announcement, make a huge step forward for the civil rights of millions of people across the entire world.  I find it heartbreaking that, despite being a generally good person, when the opportunity came over and over to take that step, to even feel it out, he chose not to do so.

This, I agree with. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

TheGlyphstone

#167
Indeed, though with the caveat that I know very little of the Catholic Church's internal workings, I wonder how much he actually can do. Unofficial personal statements like the ones previously linked, or having private meetings with LGBT people, he does, but I wonder if his personal feelings and his duty as the head of the RCC are in conflict here. The RCC is the largest and most entrenched conservative group on Earth - a blanket statement of welcoming/acceptance for LBGT individuals into the church would directly clash against that conservative ethos. Is it possible that his small-steps approach is more of an attempt at gradualism instead of indecisiveness, where a drastic announcement of that sort could (in his eyes, at least) result in unacceptable backlash amongst the church members that are his first priority and whom could not, at this point in time, accept that sort of doctrinal change?

eBadger

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on October 06, 2015, 04:23:14 PMIs it possible that his small-steps approach is more of an attempt at gradualism instead of indecisiveness, where a drastic announcement of that sort could (in his eyes, at least) result in unacceptable backlash amongst the church members that are his first priority and whom could not, at this point in time, accept that sort of doctrinal change?

That is, of course, the way it would need to be approached.  Unfortunately, I don't see evidence of those small steps. 

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: eBadger on October 06, 2015, 04:45:52 PM
That is, of course, the way it would need to be approached.  Unfortunately, I don't see evidence of those small steps.

I'm talking about things like his pronouncement in 2013 with regards to gay clergy members.
Quote
“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Small on itself, but gigantic relative to Benedict XVI and other previous popes who outright condemned homosexuality.

Or how in his recent tour of the US, his only extended private meeting was with a gay former student of his and his partner, which was already discussed up-thread. If those small steps are still too small for you, that's one thing, but they are the steps I am referring to.

Sara Nilsson

Yeah but he seems to have been backing like mad from those comments, so frankly I am not expecting things to move forward towards equality in the catholic church within the next few lifetimes. Not with him now inviting lots of hate groups and making one anti lgbt statement after another.

The initial comments from him where positive yes but.. meh I am not so sure the pope really has much say within the church, he seems to be more and more just a mouthpiece spouting the usual hatred that they all have been spouting since the beginning.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/06/the-vatican-is-allegedly-secretly-funding-gay-cure-therapy/

when yes allegedly but still when news like that start to surface, yeah the church isnt gonna change until they realize that they have no supporters left. And they still got plenty left in the world.

eBadger

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on October 06, 2015, 04:58:18 PM
I'm talking about things like his pronouncement in 2013 with regards to gay clergy members.Small on itself, but gigantic relative to Benedict XVI and other previous popes who outright condemned homosexuality.

That was the flash of hope I referred to earlier.  It seemed to lay the subtle groundwork for more inclusive policies without directly challenging the previous dogma.  It has not been followed with any further talk of inclusion, however.  Just with the Kim Davis issue, given repeated opportunity for a considered response, claiming she 'mislead' him - there was a clear opportunity to lay some basic groundwork for human rights, even just another claim that he couldn't judge a person for their acts or a vague notion that he didn't agree with how she handled her objection.  Such a blatant opportunity, in fact, that it says a great deal that it wasn't taken. 

Let’s Be Honest: The Pope Probably Agrees With Kim Davis on Same-Sex Marriage

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on October 06, 2015, 04:58:18 PMOr how in his recent tour of the US, his only extended private meeting was with a gay former student of his and his partner, which was already discussed up-thread. If those small steps are still too small for you, that's one thing, but they are the steps I am referring to.

He also went to a prison.  I think, in his mind, there is a clear parallel. 

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Sara Nilsson on October 06, 2015, 05:28:20 PM
Yeah but he seems to have been backing like mad from those comments, so frankly I am not expecting things to move forward towards equality in the catholic church within the next few lifetimes. Not with him now inviting lots of hate groups and making one anti lgbt statement after another.

The initial comments from him where positive yes but.. meh I am not so sure the pope really has much say within the church, he seems to be more and more just a mouthpiece spouting the usual hatred that they all have been spouting since the beginning.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/06/the-vatican-is-allegedly-secretly-funding-gay-cure-therapy/

when yes allegedly but still when news like that start to surface, yeah the church isnt gonna change until they realize that they have no supporters left. And they still got plenty left in the world.

Eh What?

I have yet to hear anything about 'inviting lots of hate groups', or him making explicit anti-LGBT statements other than the usual party-line bits; for that matter, he never really backtracked on his comments at all, it was the Vatican offices falling over themselves to clarify how the Pope hadn't just endorsed the gay lifestyle...exactly the sort of backlash I mentioned.

As for that so-called 'secret gay cure camp'...unless there's a reputable source, and not just one person with a (legitimate) grudge and definite motive for making the Church look bad, I'm going to chalk that up alongside 'the Pope is secretly a space alien'.

Quote from: eBadger on October 06, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
That was the flash of hope I referred to earlier.  It seemed to lay the subtle groundwork for more inclusive policies without directly challenging the previous dogma.  It has not been followed with any further talk of inclusion, however.  Just with the Kim Davis issue, given repeated opportunity for a considered response, claiming she 'mislead' him - there was a clear opportunity to lay some basic groundwork for human rights, even just another claim that he couldn't judge a person for their acts or a vague notion that he didn't agree with how she handled her objection.  Such a blatant opportunity, in fact, that it says a great deal that it wasn't taken. 

Let’s Be Honest: The Pope Probably Agrees With Kim Davis on Same-Sex Marriage

He also went to a prison.  I think, in his mind, there is a clear parallel. 

Do I think Francis supports gay marriage? No - he's an extremely devout Catholic, of course not; you don't get to be Pope if you don't believe in and are willing to espouse the party line. But I do think he is the most liberal Pope that the Church has seen in pretty much forever, and he does intend to at least be laying the groundwork for a kinder, more inclusive Church while he's in power. He's only been in the Papacy for 2 years so far; balanced against 2 millennia of inertia to overcome, I'm willing to cut him some slack for now and hope he lives up to my impression.

eBadger

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on October 06, 2015, 05:56:41 PMDo I think Francis supports gay marriage? No - he's an extremely devout Catholic, of course not; you don't get to be Pope if you don't believe in and are willing to espouse the party line. But I do think he is the most liberal Pope that the Church has seen in pretty much forever, and he does intend to at least be laying the groundwork for a kinder, more inclusive Church while he's in power. He's only been in the Papacy for 2 years so far; balanced against 2 one millennia of inertia to overcome, I'm willing to cut him some slack for now and hope he lives up to my impression.

Sorry, the historian in me had to fix that. 

As to the rest: I see your case and I hope you're right, that it's inclusion and not just tolerance.  Little else to do now, I think, than see how it unfolds.   

Mithlomwen

Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Oniya

"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Mithlomwen

I'm curious as to what her response (if any) will be. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Jag

Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Oniya

Quote from: Jagerin on October 17, 2015, 08:13:28 PM
*facepalm*

Hubby said he wants to dress as Deadpool and go stand with the Westboro people with a sign that says "Bring me chimichangas".

I want pics.  ;D
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jag

I may not live far from Rowan county, but I am not driving my happy ass over there on my day off to stand around with a bunch of nutjobs.

If hubby wants to go and terrorize them, he goes alone. :P
Ons/Offs // Request Thread (Updated 3/10/24) // Slow to Reply at the Moment

Mithlomwen

#180
I was getting ready to type, "Pics or it didn't happen!" 

I'm still kind of in shock.  I'm half expecting hell to freeze over.  I actually agree with something the members of WBC are saying (with regard to Kim and her obeying the oath of office).   :o
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Cycle

I want to know if Huckabee is going to be there.  And if so, which side he'll be on.  ;D


Oniya

Quote from: Jagerin on October 17, 2015, 08:34:29 PM
I may not live far from Rowan county, but I am not driving my happy ass over there on my day off to stand around with a bunch of nutjobs.

If hubby wants to go and terrorize them, he goes alone. :P

I'm sure he can get a random stranger to take a pic while they're getting their marriage license signed.  Or maybe a news crew.  ;)  (And yeah, I was mostly kidding.  It would be funny as hell, so I may steal the idea if they ever head up this way for any reason.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cycle

Huckabee gets sued for his use of Eye of the Tiger.  He does not defend himself by stating that he had gotten permission to use the song or seek an early motion to dismiss (which is what one would do if the complaint was wholly legally defective).  Instead, he claims the Davis rally was a religious event, not a campaign event

Jeez man, just pay the copyright holder like you should have in the first place...

consortium11

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 02:05:04 PMHe does not defend himself by stating that he had gotten permission to use the song

You may want to read the document again as he does exactly that; in the response to point 10 of the complaint (paraphrasing; it was an unauthorized public performance of the copyrighted work and thus infringed the copyright) Huckabee's side respond by denying it.

The reason they don't go into detail is because they don't have to. Defences are split into two parts, affirmative and negating defences, with a negating defence being that something the plaintiff's has alleged is not true while an affirmative defence being that even if what the plaintiff says is true there is a further defence that can be raised. At this stage of a law suit the only details of a negating defence a side has to provide are that they'll be raising a negative defence at all. In contrast affirmative defences (as they raise new points rather than countering existing ones) have to be raised earlier; timely assertion of affirmative defences is a pretty big deal which often drags cases on and on. Affirmitive defences also generally reverse the burden of proof; as they're the defence asserting something it falls on them to prove it rather than the other side having to disprove it.

What Huckabee's side are saying is that their use of Eye of the Tiger wasn't unauthorised (i.e. he had permission to use the song) but, even if the court disagrees, there are other defences that can be raised; in this case they say they will raise four; fair use, de minimis, religious assembly and no commercial advantage.

To give an example in a different context if someone was prosecuted for murder they could raise that the requirements for murder had not been fulfilled (the negating defence), for example that there was no malice aforethought. They could also raise the affirmative defence of say self-defence; i.e. even if the court finds that the requirements for murder have been fulfilled there is still a defence that they rely on.

As I've said before I imagine this case will end up getting settled (Huckabee's side apparently already made an offer to pay some money and make an apology) because the costs of defending the suit will almost certainly dwarf a settlement fee, but that doesn't change it from being a pretty dodgy cash grab that in a different context would be considered a SLAPP suit.

Cycle

#185
Quote from: consortium11 on March 06, 2016, 04:47:31 PM
You may want to read the document again as he does exactly that; in the response to point 10 of the complaint (paraphrasing; it was an unauthorized public performance of the copyrighted work and thus infringed the copyright) Huckabee's side respond by denying it.

The reason they don't go into detail is because they don't have to.

No, all the answer does is deny the copyright violation.  Any good litigator would have done so, since admitting the truth of this allegation means Huckabee loses immediately.

Look at the factual allegations made on page 7.  If Huckabee had a license, he would have alleged it there.  There is no reason not to, since it means he wins automatically.  Indeed, if he had such a license, his lawyer would have responded with a 12B6 motion instead of an answer.  You only answer if you have no viable legal defense that can be mounted at the outset.

It is obvious Huckabee does not have a license.  You may feel the lawsuit has no merit but attorneys from major U.S. IP law firms think otherwise:  Dykema, Proskauer.

consortium11

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 05:25:43 PMNo, all the answer does is deny the copyright violation.  Any good litigator would have done so, since admitting the truth of this allegation means Huckabee loses immediately.

No, it doesn't. If Huckabee had an iron clad affirmative defence... say fair use... then he could admit the copyright violation in full and still win the case, because a successful affirmative defence trumps the violation. If he was simply relying on the affirmative defences then he wouldn't deny the copyright violation; he'd say there was one but that it was legally justified under fair use, de minimis, religious assembly and/or no commercial advantage. That's how affirmative defences work; they only come into play once the court is satisfied a violation has taken place to begin with.

A successful fair use defence works on the basis that there was a copyright violation but that it was fair use in the same way that a claim of self-defence against an assault claim works on the basis that there was an assault but that it was legally allowed because of self-defence; while all the elements of the original crime may have been satisfied a successful self-defence argument defeats them. It's the difference between affirmative and negating defences (which is why I set out the position on them); negating defences work by establishing that no crime or violation took place because the requirements for it weren't satisfied, affirmative defences work by stating that while the requirements for the crime or violation have been satisfied there is a further matter that legally protects the defendant/respondent.

If Huckabee's side weren't disputing that there was a copyright violation to begin with then they'd have accepted it in that section and simply moved straight on to their affirmative defences. They didn't; they dispute there was a copyright violation at all and only afterwards argue that if there was they have additional defences to rely on.

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 05:25:43 PMLook at the factual allegations made on page 7.  If Huckabee had a license, he would have alleged it there. There is no reason not to, since it means he wins automatically.

Those are setting out the facts they base their affirmative defences on. Having a blanket ASCAP liscence isn't part of the affirmative defences, it's part of the negating ones as it attacks whether there was unauthorized public performance to begin with. Sticking it in that section would at best get a slight rebuke from the court and at worst lead to the court demanding they refile their defence entirely (or even striking it out).

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 05:25:43 PMIndeed, if he had such a license, his lawyer would have responded with a 12B6 motion instead of an answer.  You only answer if you have no viable legal defense that can be mounted at the outset.

I have no idea where you're getting the 12B6 thing from. A 12B6 relates to a plaintiff failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that simply isn't the case here. In practical terms 12B6's are very rarely granted if the plaintiff has put even a smidgen of effort into their pleading (basically included any facts at all rather than just restate the law) and even in technical terms it wouldn't apply; Rude Music have clearly stated a factual basis for the claim and it's a claim upon which relief can be granted. 12B6's aren't used to settle factual arguments (such as whether there was a license or not), they're used when the plaintiff hasn't presented enough of a case to begin with. Moreover, even if there is a license there are still claims that Rude Music could make which I mentioned earlier in the thread (false endorsement under the Lanham Act for example). Now, as I also set out earlier I think those claims range between the weak and the laughable but they are claims upon which relief can be granted.

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 05:25:43 PMIt is obvious Huckabee does not have a license.

Why is it obvious? If Huckabee's campaign (the people being sued here) didn't have an ASCAP license then every song he played at every event would also be liable for legal action and ASCAP themselves would probably have got involved at the blatant breach of their rights. Has any of that happened? Has anyone else sued Huckabee this election cycle over his unauthorised use of their songs at his events? Hell, have any of the other groups who had their music played at the same rally taken legal action?

Quote from: Cycle on March 06, 2016, 05:25:43 PMYou may feel the lawsuit has no merit but attorneys from major U.S. IP law firms think otherwise:  Dykema, Proskauer.

Both of these (and the second one just recounts the facts and gives some context rather than offering legal analysis) base any judgement on the fact that Huckabee didn't have a license from ASCAP. If he doesn't have a license then I likely agree with them; I don't think a fair use claim is likely justified, too much of the song was used for de minimis to apply (and the courts have tightened up on what that protects over recent years), despite the religious imagery and references I don't see how the rally can be seen as a religious assembly and while the no commercial advantage side has slightly stronger legs it still strikes me as having a couple of key weaknesses.

But at this point I'm not willing to accept that Huckabee's campaign didn't have a license and I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest they didn't (remembering that it falls upon the plaintiff to prove that part). And if they did have a license then their case is far stronger than Rude Music's.

Cycle

It looks like you're pulling your affirmative defense narrative from Wikipedia.  Litigators here don't call them "negating defenses."  They're normally called failing/failure to prove an element of the cause of action.

Wikipedia is also wrong on 12B6 motions.  Extrinsic evidence can be used on a 12B6 motion if it is an integral document.  So Declaration of X, Exhibit A, copy of Huckabee's license to use Eye of the Tiger.  Done.  Huckabee wins.

Also, FRCP 8 requires a license (implied is likely the best Huckabee could do since he hasn't submitted an actual license) to be pled in the answer.  It's not there.  That is telling.

Quote from: consortium11 on March 06, 2016, 07:51:32 PM
If Huckabee's campaign (the people being sued here) didn't have an ASCAP license then every song he played at every event would also be liable for legal action and ASCAP themselves would probably have got involved at the blatant breach of their rights. Has any of that happened? Has anyone else sued Huckabee this election cycle over his unauthorised use of their songs at his events? Hell, have any of the other groups who had their music played at the same rally taken legal action?

The above is a logical fallacy that deserves no further response.

Defending Huckabee's case by hiding the license is suicide.  He'd have to offer it up in the initial disclosures anyway.  And again, there is NO advantage to be gained by hiding it.  Disclosing it early allows him to win the case early and stop paying attorney's fees.  Hiding it means the lawsuit will drag out.  Defending the suit by hiding the license/failing to disclose the license is malpractice.  No good lawyer would do it.  So the only reasonable conclusion is that Huckabee has no license.  That is why he's resorting to fair use and religious assembly.

Cassandra LeMay

Maybe one of you can explain something to me that I don't quite understand in this case.

In the Answer, Huckabee for President flat out denies the allegations of #9 of the Complaint ("Defendant denies each and every averment of the first sentence of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.") That first sentence mentioned would be:
QuoteDuring the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Huckabee for President knowingly caused a recording of “Eye of the Tiger” to be publicly performed at a campaign appearance by Mr. Huckabee.

In the Affirmative Defense (at 3.) it's further stated that the whole event was not a Huckabee for President campaign event. ("The assembly in support of Mrs. Davis was not organized, advertised, or promoted as a Huckabee for President campaign event.")

The way I, as a layman, read this is that they are denying that they were responsible for any performance of the work. Is that how everyone else also reads it? Because I am somewhat surprised that they are not emphasizing this point more.

ONs, OFFs, and writing samples | Oath of the Drake

You can not value dreams according to the odds of their becoming true.
(Sonia Sotomayor)

Cycle

Sure.  Basically, when Rude sued Huckabee, Huckabee had two ways to respond:  (1) he can challenge the complaint, or (2) he can answer and assert defenses. 

The first option usually uses a 12B6 motion.  It has the advantage of being able to dispose of a case very quickly.  In cases involving an integral document (such as a license), Huckabee can use a 12B6 motion to present that document to the court even if Rude did not attached it to the complaint.

The second option (answering) means litigation proceeds its normal (expensive) course towards trial.  In Federal Court, this also means the parties will exchange initial disclosures (i.e., the facts, documents, and witnesses they have relevant to the case).  You can't hide key facts from the initial disclosure.  If you do, you basically lose those points.  So if Huckabee had a license, he will have to disclose it then.

Huckabee did not file a 12B6 motion.  He answered.  In his answer, he denies the allegation that he violated Rude's copyright, and then asserted four defenses:  (1) fair use, (2) de minimis violation, (3) religious assembly, and (4) no commercial advantage.  (Denying an allegation isn't evidence--i.e., it can't be used by Huckabee to prove anything.  It can be used against him, however, as an admission which is why he needs to deny the material allegations.)

Basically I see what Huckabee is saying as:  yes, Eye of the Tiger was played, but his use of the song wasn't a big deal and even if it was, he used it at a religious event rather than a campaign event. 

To me, Huckabee's posture shows he didn't have a license to use Eye of the Tiger since there is no good reason for him to not have presented said license right off (on a 12B6) or assert it as a fifth affirmative defense.  Consortium clearly disagrees and therein lies our difference.

Huckabee is trying to say he's not responsible and not liable.  But the religious assembly defense is more focused on whether he played Eye of the Tiger at a campaign event or a religious gathering.  If the latter, then he may be able to escape liability. 

consortium11

As it seems pretty clear we're not going to agree on this it strikes me as a bit silly to go into too much depth, so I'll answer your points in the simplest way I can.

We know exactly what happens when someone defends a lawsuit like this in the way you suggest. When Rude Music sued Newt Gingrich in almost identical circumstances his side came out firing. They sent out a 12B6 at the outset on the basis of possessing a valid license... it was denied by the court (as the vast, vast majority of 12B6's are), as was the follow up attempt to convert the 12B6 into a motion for summary judgement (as can happen when evidence is attached). He raised the point again in his affirmative defences, both by reasserting that there was no claim upon which relief could be granted and on the basis of having a valid license... both (along with a number of his other defences) were struck out by the court on the basis that they weren't affirmative defences and it was thus inappropriate to include them there. And that was also in Illinois, so there's no question of different jurisdictions handling similar cases in a different manner.

We've seen this play out before and we've seen the steps you suggest he should have taken if he possessed a valid license do nothing but rack up additional fees and annoy the judges; never a good thing to do at the start of a case.

Quote from: Cassandra LeMay on March 07, 2016, 10:53:16 AMThe way I, as a layman, read this is that they are denying that they were responsible for any performance of the work. Is that how everyone else also reads it? Because I am somewhat surprised that they are not emphasizing this point more.

The technical point first; as it's a negating defence at this point they don't have to emphasise it, they merely have to raise it and make it clear they intend to use it later. There's tactical reasons for not giving more details then you need to right at the start; while the court of public opinion does matter the actual court matters more and you don't want to let the other side know the exact details of your position straight away and thus be able to tailor their own case to counter it. Law suits often start with the original claim and response both being relatively vague and then getting more and more detailed as each side amends and re-files their position, which means by the time a case actually reaches court (if it ever does... most get settled and I expect this one to go the same way) there generally aren't any surprises left on either side or details still to be revealed, with each side knowing exactly what will be argued.

In the more general sense, it's an interesting legal point and perhaps the most interesting legal one of this case; all the other details are basically fixed legally by now. Rude Music aren't suing Huckabee personally, they're suing Huckabee for President, which means Huckabee for President has to have been behind the copyright violation in some way for them to succeed. Did Huckabee for President organize the rally for Davis? Campaign finance rules on recording expenditure are fairly tight so it should be easy to check that... but even then it isn't quite so simple. On Huckabee's website (which also doubled as his official campaign website) he had a "Free Kim Davis" page which at one point stated "I'm holding an "#ImWithKim Liberty Rally" on Tuesday, September 8th at the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson, Kentucky at 3:00 PM ET (local time)" (archive here). That would swing it towards being a Huckabee for President event, even if it wasn't recorded as officially being one (at the start of the rally the preacher thanks a number of Churches for organizing it)... but then Huckabee's side would say that was him speaking in his personal capacity rather than for the campaign and point to the fact the event wasn't branded as a rally for Huckabee or something similar. Rude Music would almost certainly counter by saying that if a Presidential candidate takes part in a high profile event then it doesn't matter if there aren't any posters or branding there, the effect is largely the same. They'd likely also point out that Huckabee's presidential run was referenced a number of times by speakers on the stage and while his own speech only made one direct reference to his presidential ambitions it was largely focused around what his vision for the country would be... very much the stuff of Presidential campaign events.

So who is responsible for an event which isn't officially organized by a Presidential candidate but at which they have a high profile role, advertise it, take a lot of credit for and have their Presidential ambitions referenced a number of times?

Even if there isn't a slam-dunk direct connection which proves Huckabee for President organized the rally, I suspect the courts will still see it as a campaign event they were the organizers of; to do otherwise would ignore too much context. But it's an interesting little debate that often gets underplayed when such cases come up; while it was never tested in court because the case settled, in the Newt Gingrich action mentioned above one of Gingrich's (many) defences was that the proper party for the case to be brought against was actually the venues he was speaking at and at the very least they should have been joined into the case.

Cycle

Quote from: consortium11 on March 08, 2016, 10:44:07 AM
We know exactly what happens when someone defends a lawsuit like this in the way you suggest. When Rude Music sued Newt Gingrich in almost identical circumstances his side came out firing. They sent out a 12B6 at the outset on the basis of possessing a valid license... it was denied by the court (as the vast, vast majority of 12B6's are), as was the follow up attempt to convert the 12B6 into a motion for summary judgement (as can happen when evidence is attached). He raised the point again in his affirmative defences, both by reasserting that there was no claim upon which relief could be granted and on the basis of having a valid license... both (along with a number of his other defences) were struck out by the court on the basis that they weren't affirmative defences and it was thus inappropriate to include them there. And that was also in Illinois, so there's no question of different jurisdictions handling similar cases in a different manner.

We've seen this play out before and we've seen the steps you suggest he should have taken if he possessed a valid license do nothing but rack up additional fees and annoy the judges; never a good thing to do at the start of a case.

The above is completely wrong.

Gingrich did not file a 12B6.  He answered, and then opposed a motion to strike.  Here is the docket:  Rude v. Newt 2012, case no. 1:2012cv00640.  The only party that filed a 12B6 is another defendant, and they prevailed on lack of jurisdiction.

Your statements are not based on facts but fabrication.  Given this, I wholly agree discussing this issue with you further is pointless.