Topic: Clerk defies U.S. high court, denies gay marriage licenses (Read 1712 times)

Why can't they fire her? I think that's exactly what should have happened. Getting thrown in jail for this is overkill.


Marriage is a completely antiquated and outdated institution anyway. Humans aren't meant to be monogamous so when they try it's joke and just leads to cheating. It's very rare that a married couple will stay together their whole life and also not have cheated. Even the ones that do go the distance there's normally infidelity that one of that parties involved doesn't know about.

It would be de-facto argumentation to legalize polygamy if they are not faithful only to their spouses, if people being married still wanted to fuck with others of the same gender besides their spouse then that's legalizing polygamous marriage and given the statistics evidence does seem to be a reasonable burden of proof to marriage otherwise get common-law.

That said having too many partners does result in a significant increase in the risk of STD's and the differences in how sex is practiced between the LGBT community and the straight community especially in terms of the number of sexual partners show the impact these viewpoints have in the transmission of HIV/Aids.

While with gays the chance of having a wedlock kid who you don't know the father or mother of is 0 compared to sexually active heterosexuals that does not apply to Bi-sexual individuals who could spread STD's between sexes.

If a LGBT couple wishes to marry then they should remain monogamous and not implying that their should be a change the definition of marriage to include multiple partners (polygamy) or I guess divorce, extending from the topic of gay marriage the main reason blood transfusions are denied to the Gay community is because of the high risk of STD's and that remains true to this day even with more modern testing methods so there is a reason to ask for proof of faithfulness to their partners after marriage.


There is evidence that correlates a difference between straight and LGBT groups in STD's and this is due to the increased partners they have and does NOT apply to heterosexual couples to the extent it does in the LGBT groupings where 2% represent 61% of HIV infections.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. From 2007 through 2010, among adult and adolescent males, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to MSM increased, while the numbers of infections attributed to other risks among males decreased. Among adult and adolescent females, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to injection drug use and heterosexual contact both decreased.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated.

You keep saying they should remain faithful [only] to their spouses, but haven't really backed it up with a reason yet.  People like to fuck, a lot, sometimes with different people.  They also find somebody that they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.  I see no reason why these two things need to be mutually exclusive.

Straight people don't have to prove they're going to stay with one person only, why arbitrarily make a point that there is too much somewhere between straight and LGBT people?

Married people should stay faithful to their spouses. If you want to have physical relationship with different partners every single day, then either don't marry, or get a divorce (in case you are already married). I would support their "right to marry", if someone gives me proof that they will stay faithful to their partners after the marriage.

What exactly is unethical about it?  If everybody involved is consenting and enjoying it then who is it hurting?  Seems like a win/win situation.  Even if you're personally against it for whatever reason, your random rules don't override the fact that they have the right to marry. 

Maybe because it's currently considered "taboo" by the majority of the population (christians look down on homosexuality), so you "take what you can get".

That will change as religion dies and homosexuality becomes considered just another lifestyle - like pork or heavy metal.  Eventually there will be no taboo against gay relationships, so people won't have to take what they can get - anonymous strangers.

In case of heterosexuals, this is quite rare. May be the lucky 5% or the 10% might be able to get a dozen or more partners. You seems to be one of those lucky guys.  And it is quite rare for married heterosexuals to have physical relations with strangers.

However, as far as I know, among the homosexuals, it is more like a norm. Married homosexuals frequently engage in sexual activity with complete strangers, and no one thinks that it is unethical.

I've probably had heterosexual sex with 30 or more partners in my lifetime.  20 of those were probably strangers (known less than a week), so well over one half.

That doesn't mean if I settle down I have a 95% chance to leave my partner.  

In their publication, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg gives some stats relating to the number of sexual partners for an average homosexual.


And some more stats from The Journal of Sex Research

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477

It does make me wonder from a competitive standpoint if labor and capital would emigrate from the US to other friendlier countries if they go to far down that rabbit-hole and arrest people for opposing LGBT viewpoints if they don't have substantial support behind them.
Whether it leads to world peace through feminism (ha-ha I can actually humor that idea working) or is just one more spark that will lead to civil unrest for a generation to come is another question.


Looked it up since that comment interested me if it could be backed up could not find many polygamy studies but did look at the line of argumentation extending from it it seems that researchers want more data.

"In order to best prepare for possible debate surrounding Canada's polygamy policy, critical research is needed," a Status of Women Canada document said last year.

"It is vital that researchers explore the impacts of polygamy on women and children and gender equality, as well as the challenges that polygamy presents to society."

Sayd Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said last year that he opposes same-sex marriage, but said if it is legalized in Canada, polygamists would be within their rights to challenge for their choice of family life to be legalized.

"This is a liberally minded country with regards to equal rights, and literally millions live common law," Mr. Ali said.

Multiple marriage is legal in most Muslim countries, he said. But Muslim men who take more than one wife must prove to local courts that they are capable of treating them all equally, Mr. Ali said.

Chief author of the report Martha Bailey told The Canadian Press that criminalizing polygamy serves no good purpose.

"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she said. "We don't criminalize adultery.

"In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society, why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?, Ms. Bailey told The Canadian Press.

Ms. Baines said polygamy is rarely prosecuted. "No one is actually being prosecuted but the provision is still being used in the context of immigration and refugee stuff. People are not being admitted to the country."

She said removing it from the Criminal Code will not force marriage laws to recognize it, but would only remove criminal sanctions.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=8451dc17-5b5f-4ea4-a05f-71f7c758662a&

I wonder what the real issue is? Some straight folks get a marriage license because they think it is the right thing to do. Others get the license for political or tax reasons. Many don't get a license at all, and simply live by common law/contract marriage. What was the real reason in this case? After all, nobody needs a license.

I'd love to see a link to one of these "surveys".  Because it just doesn't seem true.  

She is spending her third night in jail tonight.  She'll stay there until she resigns or actually does what she is being paid to do.

Marriage doesn't mean anything to the homosexuals, as almost all of the gay unions are polygamous. According to surveys conducted by reputed researchers, less than 5% of the homosexuals stay faithful to their partner. Adultery is an issue with heterosexual unions as well, but in such cases it is normally an anomaly. In case of homosexuals, it is more like a norm.


I am not interested in immigrating to Gaymerica. But thanks anyway.

This is a really funny case. It's even more funny that this woman doesn't seem to understand why she's being told she's wrong. All reports indicate that she thinks the courts are trying to supress her belief in her faith, but that has nothing to do with it.

One of the points of Freedom of Religion (in the US) is that one person can't impose their religious beliefs on any other person, which is exactly what she's doing. If she can't issue marriage licenses as the law allows because of her religious beliefs than her conviction to her religious beliefs don't make her fit to serve in that role and she must step down. She'd do more for her cause by stepping down and using the opportunity to explain why.

She's stood up for her beliefs in the absolute wrong way, which is unfortunate because it's admirable to stand up for one's beliefs.

I wonder how long she'll be in jail before she realizes the real reason why she's in the wrong.


Bryant, if you mean this is the "new face" because people who are gay are being given the same rights as everyone else - then you're right, this is the new face of America. This has everything to do with politically correct (but not in the figurative interpretation), if it's legal for a gay couple to get married than it is literally politically incorrect to deny them that right. If you're not happy with that law you should do something to try to change it.

But there's nothing feminist or pussy about granting the same rights to everybody. If you don't believe in this statement: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You probably don't belong in America...it's that simple.

This is the new face of Gaymerica. In less than 10 years time, every individual, who refuses to bow down to the Political Correctness - LGBT - radical feminist agendas will be either jailed, or forced to move to some other sane country (such as Russia or Japan). Anyway... I think this development will be good for the world peace. If the Americans transform themselves to feminized pussies, then it will be harder for them to invade other countries such as Iraq and Libya.

And her deputies have done what she should have done.
This should end the debate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/04/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150904
Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licenses

+1

She is being paid and she is not doing her job.  Since you can't fire her, throw her worthless ass in jail.

Remember, religion is just the word of someone (who believes the word of someone)^100¹ who believed the world was flat and snakes talked.

Have her god pay her salary.

¹ (100 is based on 20 centuries of 5 generations each.  This number should probably be higher.)

In this case it looks like the scale is to large for them to make any threats like moving children to foster homes, society in general has discouraged the curriculum change and it was considered a political issue there in the last election, too little consultation before this was implemented.

Rather promotion of home schooling and private schooling seems to be the norm at present as this is still an ongoing story.

“We feel hopeless,” said Khalid Mahmood, a father of five who lives in Thorncliffe Park. His three younger children will not be in class when schools open next week. “Our goal is to do home-schooling for a month, maybe longer,” said Mahmood, who also helped organize a protest rally outside Premier Kathleen Wynne’s constituency office Wednesday.

“We don’t want to be outside the mainstream,” Mahmood said. “Our call is not anti-public school system, but we feel there should be a system that should accommodate all people.”

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/09/03/parents-scrambling-for-alternatives-to-public-schools-amid-sex-ed-row.html
http://www.am980.ca/2015/09/02/sex-ed-curriculum-protests-2/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34145941

A US judge has ordered a Kentucky official jailed for contempt of court after she has repeatedly refused to issue marriage licences to gay couples.
Kim Davis, an elected official in Rowan County, has said that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses.
The US Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal in June.
Ms Davis, who has said she is obeying "God's law," has been taken into custody by US Marshalls.

Well it looks like she's going to a hearing today for Contempt of Court charges.  All of this would be a hell of a lot easier if she would just resign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/kentucky-rowan-county-clerk-kim-davis-denies-marriage-license.html?_r=0

Edit: she has been taken into custody until she agrees to issue the licenses