Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it wasn't, it just didn't exist..

Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.

To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.

If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.

Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.

Last stages of the War begins, like isolated German units being overwhelmed by Allies in the final months of Nazi existence in 1945. (hey no one has Godwinned this puppy yet!)
http://kxan.com/2015/07/02/texas-couple-to-sue-after-clerk-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license/

Here's what I would do, sue the clerk personally and the county. Most just go after the largest entity with the most money, but I would sue the person first, then the county.

Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

here you go fraz, "you know who else was against marriage equality? The nazi's"

How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it wasn't, it just didn't exist..

Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.

To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.

If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.

Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.

Last stages of the War begins, like isolated German units being overwhelmed by Allies in the final months of Nazi existence in 1945. (hey no one has Godwinned this puppy yet!)
http://kxan.com/2015/07/02/texas-couple-to-sue-after-clerk-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license/

Here's what I would do, sue the clerk personally and the county. Most just go after the largest entity with the most money, but I would sue the person first, then the county.

Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

here you go fraz, "you know who else was against marriage equality? The nazi's"

It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.

 Frazzled wrote:
How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill

You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.

This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill

You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.

This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.

I will restate as you appear to have misperceived.
1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision?
2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed.
3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill

You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.

This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.

I will restate as you appear to have misperceived.
1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision?
2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed.
3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.

1. They agreed after the fact, to abide by the decision. When it was the time to abide by the decision, they didn't. Not only did they refuse to abide, they had security kick two people out of the office. And since when does it take 3 weeks to get paperwork, paperwork that others are currently using? odds are you can download it off from a .gov site in mins. Or just do some pen & ink changes as needed, it doesn't take 3 weeks. That sounds like they're still not abiding and now they're just stalling for time to see if they can find another reason to deny this couple.

In the end, you have a couple wanting to get married, they're told no, they're kicked out of the building by security, and told to wait 3 weeks. Let the lawsuits commence.

Good hunting Mr Churchill sir.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

I don't think that's quite accurate.

 Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

I don't think that's quite accurate.

Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.

I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory.

I guess you could start there.

Heck, cant only an ordained priest officiate a marriage? Why are they handing out the damn things?

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.

I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory.

I guess you could start there.

Oh ya, I forgot. It's just the word of god, why would anyone listen to him. god obviously changed his mind and has subjective morality.

psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.

"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill

You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.

This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.

I will restate as you appear to have misperceived.
1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision?
2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed.
3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.

1. They agreed after the fact, to abide by the decision. When it was the time to abide by the decision, they didn't. Not only did they refuse to abide, they had security kick two people out of the office. And since when does it take 3 weeks to get paperwork, paperwork that others are currently using? odds are you can download it off from a .gov site in mins. Or just do some pen & ink changes as needed, it doesn't take 3 weeks. That sounds like they're still not abiding and now they're just stalling for time to see if they can find another reason to deny this couple.

In the end, you have a couple wanting to get married, they're told no, they're kicked out of the building by security, and told to wait 3 weeks. Let the lawsuits commence.

Three weeks is not long in dealing with bureaucracies. The counties are moving forward. The threat of the lawsuit is enough as they've already backtracked. But again, if delays continue then suits are warranted.

EDIT: Just re-read. Escorting them out is BS.
You're right. Put forth a suit and only drop when the license is issued.

Good hunting Mr Churchill sir.

DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Heck, cant only an ordained priest officiate a marriage? Why are they handing out the damn things?

Religious marriage.

In Texas (it used to be) that you didn't need anything. if you put yourself out as married to all others than you were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.

What? Only certain sects of Christianity still do.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Oh ya, I forgot. It's just the word of god, why would anyone listen to him. god obviously changed his mind and has subjective morality.

psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.

You really should do even the smallest bit of research into what is actually taught. I realize you hate religion and all, so having a reasonable conversation with you is a pipe dream, but seriously.

I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies. I'm also aware, as is the Pope, of what the Catholic Church's present teachings are, and that all the bits about loving thy fellow man, you know, the New Testament stuff that Christ preached, takes precedent in, as I said, nearly every Christian sect active today.

You can continue with the belligerent ignorance if you want, but I'd really encourage you to drop the ignorant part if you want to continue with the belligerence.

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Oh ya, I forgot. It's just the word of god, why would anyone listen to him. god obviously changed his mind and has subjective morality.

psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.

You really should do even the smallest bit of research into what is actually taught. I realize you hate religion and all, so having a reasonable conversation with you is a pipe dream, but seriously.

I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies. I'm also aware, as is the Pope, of what the Catholic Church's present teachings are, and that all the bits about loving thy fellow man, you know, the New Testament stuff that Christ preached, takes precedent in, as I said, nearly every Christian sect active today.

You can continue with the belligerent ignorance if you want, but I'd really encourage you to drop the ignorant part if you want to continue with the belligerence.

First, I don't hate anyone, nor any religion.

The bible lies? tsk tsk, are you sure you're a christian? If you believe any part of the bible is a Lie, then how can you take any other part as gospel? Maybe you have them backwards and what you think are lies are the truth, and what you think is the truth is really the lies. I know what some christians teach, they cherry picked the bible for just the good bits and teach that, while ignoring everything else.

Why don't all you christians get together once and for all figure out what bible you're following and what parts. There's 42,000 different sects of christians because no two people can agree on anything the bible says. Or at the very least pick the sect that are the true christians, then call out all the others publicly as non-christian. The anti marriage crowd likes quoting leviticus, as they allow leviticus then deuteronomy is also allowed. I bet this clerk is in the pro leviticus camp, but if that's not your sect's belief, then move along. I'd bet your sect teaches genesis though, so again that allows for the old testament to be relevant. See this is why God sent Mohammad, so he could set the record straight once and for all, straight from his mouth into writing.

I'm always amazed at the number of christians who accept the 10 commandments (exodus, old book) yet ignore everything else god says and commands.

Did god change his mind?
are gods morals situational and as fluid as the tide and in no way absolute?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.

What? Only certain sects of Christianity still do.

Exactly fraz, Not your sect, but they're still accepted as christians.

And? No one said they weren't.

You know who else were christians? The nazi's

They were nothing to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, all atheists.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

Not that I know of Hitler doing what he did -due- to his religion.

Hey he started it. Like B-17s over Dresden delivering thousands of tons of firebombing FREEDOM, I ended it.

Saw this cartoon today, thought it was funny, as it does illustrate a downside to marriage equality:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey he started it. Like B-17s over Dresden delivering thousands of tons of firebombing FREEDOM, I ended it.

Yeah I know, that's why I added the "due to his religion" part.

 Frazzled wrote:

Exactly fraz, Not your sect, but they're still accepted as christians.

And? No one said they weren't.

You know who else were christians? The nazi's

They were nothing to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, all atheists.

As we see thou, cincy did imply it, apparently according to him, if you use the old testament as anything but allegory, then you are not a christian. Because none of the christian world does otherwise.

cincydooley wrote:
"I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory. "

so my comment to you was to highlight cincy's error, and throw you another goodwin

but you're saying the guy we use to compare all evil to, is actually only the 4th most evil man in history?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.

And that's exactly the point of what they're doing. You can't take a law to court and challenge it until you've been harmed by it, so this is the beginning of the next challenge to laws against polygamy. I don't think they're expecting to get (and keep) legal recognition of their marriage until/unless the case goes to court.

Bigamy is actually criminalized, not just illegal. It's a misdemeanor in Ohio.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Saw this cartoon today, thought it was funny, as it does illustrate a downside to marriage equality:

Spoiler:

Thats both epic and oh so true. I don't care what you are I just want grand kids (LATER) that I feed sugar and chili too and show how to pop a wheelie on a Kawasaki with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Exactly fraz, Not your sect, but they're still accepted as christians.

And? No one said they weren't.

You know who else were christians? The nazi's

They were nothing to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, all atheists.

As we see thou, cincy did imply it, apparently according to him, if you use the old testament as anything but allegory, then you are not a christian. Because none of the christian world does otherwise.

cincydooley wrote:
"I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory. "

so my comment to you was to highlight cincy's error, and throw you another goodwin

but you're saying the guy we use to compare all evil to, is actually only the 4th most evil man in history?

Maybe 6th. Temudgin actually intentionally wiped out entire civilizations.
Edit: I'd say Cortez too but IIRC he didn't intentionally wipe everyone out with smallpox.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.

Gay marriage was illegal just a few days ago.

Being gay was illegal once upon a time. I think we will soon see polygamy being legalized.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/articles/class-action-suit-filed-against-rowan-county-clerk-for-marriage-license-refusals/

Looks like it is already beginning. This is going to get pretty interesting.

Good. Hopefully the counties will be smart and just force them to give licenses, or boot them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Heck, cant only an ordained priest officiate a marriage? Why are they handing out the damn things?

My wife and I were married by a Notary.

When we renewed our vows, the ceremony was officiated by a ship Captain.

Each state has different laws on who can officiate a marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:


It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.

You do realize that about 97.2% of work is done against peoples will, right? That need for a paycheck though, really gets that motivation going.

I mean, do you honestly thing I like to sit around all day and listen to pilots bitch about the weather that I tell them? I hate it. But the law requires they get a weather briefing before they can fly, and I am the person who is supposed to do it. Maybe I should be given choice in the matter? I don't like a certain pilot, so I'm just not going to give him a weather forecast anymore. Sounds fair enough.

 Sienisoturi wrote:


It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.

You do realize that about 97.2% of work is done against peoples will, right? That need for a paycheck though, really gets that motivation going.

I mean, do you honestly thing I like to sit around all day and listen to pilots bitch about the weather that I tell them? I hate it. But the law requires they get a weather briefing before they can fly, and I am the person who is supposed to do it. Maybe I should be given choice in the matter? I don't like a certain pilot, so I'm just not going to give him a weather forecast anymore. Sounds fair enough.

You did not read the spoiler did you? If you would not do that job people might die, but that is not the case with baking cakes or issuing marriage lisenses. Also, I am fairly certain that when you chose your career you knew that you had to provide this information to anyone who needs it. What must be noted also, is that while many people don't want to do their jobs, it is the business of the employer, worker and the customer, but not the states, meaning that people are very free to choose what job they want to do.

It's a sin to be gay in the same book where it's a sin to charge interest on a loan. My wife and I are also going straight to hell because we lived together for 6 years before our marriage three years ago.

Whatever. Let people be happy. If they want to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other, more power to them. My wife and I are actually interested in whether this ruling will lead to getting an invitation to her gay cousin's wedding, who has had a devoted partner for the entire 10 years we have been together.

I only had a religious ceremony because my wife wanted it, and we have only been to church since then for other marriage ceremonies. On the other hand a couple we are friends with just got married by another friend who got a license specifically for that one marriage.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The bible lies? tsk tsk, are you sure you're a christian? If you believe any part of the bible is a Lie, then how can you take any other part as gospel? Maybe you have them backwards and what you think are lies are the truth, and what you think is the truth is really the lies. I know what some christians teach, they cherry picked the bible for just the good bits and teach that, while ignoring everything else.

Sigh...

Cincy said, "I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies." What this means is that he is familiar with its position in the Biblical canon (after Exodus and before Numbers) not that the scripture itself is untrue.

Why don't all you christians get together once and for all figure out what bible you're following and what parts. There's 42,000 different sects of christians because no two people can agree on anything the bible says. Or at the very least pick the sect that are the true christians, then call out all the others publicly as non-christian. The anti marriage crowd likes quoting leviticus, as they allow leviticus then deuteronomy is also allowed. I bet this clerk is in the pro leviticus camp, but if that's not your sect's belief, then move along. I'd bet your sect teaches genesis though, so again that allows for the old testament to be relevant. See this is why God sent Mohammad, so he could set the record straight once and for all, straight from his mouth into writing.

That is a multi-tiered question. Part of the problem with deciding what the Bible says is that it is translated from Koine Greek. Inferring meaning from Koine Greek to any other language is complicated, so much so that there is an entire subset of theology devoted to figuring out exactly what the original meaning was. The second part is that, since we are all humans, no one can universally agree on any one interpretation of the text. You're cute example of Mohammad is ironic as well, because Muslim scholars continue to debate over the interpretation of Qur'an (lest we forget that there are multiple denominations in Islam as well).