The jailing of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for failing to issue a marriage licence to a same-sex couple questions the values of those same-sex couples pursuing marriage licences.

Why would you want to pursue a course of action which gives you nothing of worth when there is the strong possibility that someone else could be hurt by that action?

Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence. Why is it that same-sex couples are prepared to cause so much disruption to society to pursue something that so many other human beings do not value at all?

It might be a right but it is a right that millions do not even bother taking up since they do not see it as worth anything. There are thousands of rights but we quite readily don’t bother pursuing them especially if they create problems for others. It is all a matter of importance. Why is marriage so desperately important to people that they are prepared to see someone go to jail for the sake of their rights. We are not talking freedom from slavery or apartheid but a marriage licence which gives you nothing.

The reasons that Kim Davis gave may not be good reasons but she is prepared to stay in jail for them. It is obviously causing her a great deal of stress. What kind of human being would willing pursue something that causes stress for a great many people when there is nothing to be gained by doing so? Unless it is a form of bullying in which the only way they can feel good about themselves is to cause pain for others.

If it is so important to have a marriage licence then tell us why and then we should ask all those couples who do not have one why it is so unimportant to them. One of these groups is not being honest.

Many homosexuals socially well adjusted recognise marriage is only for hetrosexuals who want to establish family; and are against recognising anal or digital sex as marriage.

phanto, The right to marry is only the beginning. They want total equality and it just won't happen, won't stop them trying.

phanto,

We had just finished briefly discussing the argumentum ad populum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) on the other thread and now you’ve committed it here.

<<Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence.>>

So because millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together in a defacto relationship, that invalidates any value that same-sex couples see in marriage?

You then base the rest of your claims on this premise to paint same-sex marriage advocates as bullies.

<<Why is it that same-sex couples are prepared to cause so much disruption to society to pursue something that so many other human beings do not value at all?>>

The obvious answer to your question is that they see value in it, but you have fallaciously appealed to popular opinion in an attempt to discount that as a possibility.

//There are thousands of rights but we quite readily don’t bother pursuing them especially if they create problems for others.//

Kim Davis was jailed for contempt of court, which according to wikipedia is 'the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court'. Seems to me that people who get charged with contempt create problems for themselves.

Everybody has the right not to commit contempt of court. If a person thinks their religious views are more important than the laws of the country they live in they can - and often do - choose to ignore the law in favour of what they fervently believe to be right. The consequence of this choice is that they are liable to be prosecuted for breaking the law, which seems reasonable. We wouldn't accept people following Sharia law where it conflicts with Australian law and the Americans shouldn't be expected to accept people violating their laws and committing contempt of court because the Bible says it's OK.

//Many homosexuals socially well adjusted recognise marriage is only for hetrosexuals who want to establish family; and are against recognising anal or digital sex as marriage.//

I think it's safe to say that everybody is against recognising sex as marriage. Because that would be retarded. The law would have to recognise marriage between a Kiwi and his sheep, or a Catholic priest and his altar boys. And pretty much everyone would be guilty of bigamy.

Its all about 'love'. Only a fool would believe that.

AJ Phillips:

Why do you insist on linking to Wikipedia pages on the theory of arguments and then proceed to tell me what is wrong with my argument? I really only need one or the other.

“So because millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together in a defacto relationship, that invalidates any value that same-sex couples see in marriage?”

Well it might do exactly that. It depends on the value you have in mind. Could you give me an example?

“The obvious answer to your question is that they see value in it, but you have fallaciously appealed to popular opinion in an attempt to discount that as a possibility.”

I have not appealed to popular opinion I have appealed to the popular behaviour of millions of people. Why do they behave in such a way that is so different from the way that same-sex couples want to behave in regards to marriage?

Toni Lavis:

We all know the legality of it. Pursuing your legal rights when there is nothing to gain from it but causing trouble is the sign of someone insecure in their own views.

and the lesbian judge who refused to sanction normal weddings. No jail, no fine but no doubt justified by the regressives.

ttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206196796333790&set=a.1145010980386.2023248.1080864852&type=1&fref=nf

phanto,

I can quit with the links if you’d prefer, but they save time and are handy for those who might want to know more about what I’m referring to.

<<Well [millions of heterosexual couples telling us that they are quite content to live together in defacto relationships] might [invalidate any value that same-sex couples see in marriage].>>

No, it would never do that. That’s the whole point. That’s why your claim is fallacious. Clearly continuing with the links wouldn’t hurt.

If one of my kids draws a picture for me, it doesn’t matter if the whole world disagrees with me that there is value in it. It still has value to me. That doesn’t change with popular opinion. My feelings don’t become invalid because many others disagree with me.

<<I have not appealed to popular opinion…>>

Yes, you have. Once again:

“Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6993#213892)

Either way, the following makes no difference…

<<…I have appealed to the popular behaviour of millions of people.>>

The reasoning is still fallacious. Tinkering with the wording doesn’t change that.

<<Why do they behave in such a way that is so different from the way that same-sex couples want to behave in regards to marriage?>>

That would be different for each individual couple. Either way, there are still plenty of heterosexual couples getting married. The trend in marriage may be on the decline, but a large part of that is because there is no longer a stigma surrounding defacto partnerships. Their children, for example, are no longer “bastards”.

"What kind of human being would willing pursue something that causes stress for a great many people when there is nothing to be gained by doing so? Unless it is a form of bullying in which the only way they can feel good about themselves is to cause pain for others."

You are talking about Kim Davis, correct?

So it is someone who does not respect the rule of law. Someone who ignores the oath they took in accepting their office. Someone who will not abide the decision to not hear their invalid stay appeal and is guilty of contempt of court. Someone who is a seditionist by ignoring the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Someone whose religious claims are in no way affected if she were to legally do her job.

That she is a fornicator, adulteress (X3), judging of others and a liar are irrelevent except as reflections on her life as a Baptist before joining the Solid Rock Apostolic Church in the, ironically named, town of Morehead. That she holds any authority over males is very difficult to reconcile with her pretense of believing a strictly literal interpretation of Christian pentacostalism.

No, the only bullying in this instance is by Kim Davis.

//We all know the legality of it. Pursuing your legal rights when there is nothing to gain from it but causing trouble is the sign of someone insecure in their own views.//

Apparently you don't. Contempt charges are levelled by the court, and they do have something to gain from it besides 'causing trouble': it helps maintain the rule of law, without which we'd all be stuffed. And they're definitely not insecure in their own views: courts have frowned on contempt for many, many moons and have never shown any signs of wavering.

//Its all about 'love'. Only a fool would believe that.//

Runner, isn't that exactly what the Bible teaches? That it is all about love?

Are people who follow the Bible foolish?

AJ Philips:

You seem rather confused about why you provide the links. I didn’t ask you to quit the links – I asked you why you need to do both things. You said you would quit if I liked and then said that you did it to save time for others. If you are doing it for others why would you quit just because I asked you? Then after saying you would quit you sarcastically said that because of the argument I promoted that perhaps continuing the links would not hurt.

It seems to me that you are patronisingly suggesting that only those who are well versed in the mechanics of argument have the right to present arguments. Everyone on this forum has a right to present an argument no matter how lacking in the correct mechanics it is unless you are advocating some kind of censorship.

Of course if you are not being patronising (playing the man instead of the ball) then you have nothing to defend.

WmTrevor:

Bullying is about the use of power. The only power Kim Davis has in the situation is the power to refuse to do her job and suffer the consequences for her principles.

The same-sex couples have the complete weight of the law behind them and that can be abused. Using a power when there is no point in doing so when it will cause trouble for someone else is bullying.

Toni Lavis:

I know what contempt means but it is only invoked when necessary. In this case it was not necessary to have a marriage licence (it never is) therefore there was no need to push the point in order to reach the stage where the rule of law about contempt needed to be invoked.

WmTrevor "Someone who ignores the oath they took in accepting their office"

Except that when they took that oath, there were no gay marriage licenses, nor in their wildest dreams did they ever expect there to be.

Should someone's entire career be sacrificed due to an only-just majority decision by a court (not even law created by parliament!) after 26 years working for that county?

Why does *this* couple need *this* clerk to sign *this* document in *this* county?
After the court's decision, there should be plenty of counties and clerks to go to.
They're just petulant prissy princesses.

The American constitution is also supposed to support freedom of religion.

But apparently that has been forgotten or can be flippantly ignored since leftists despise religion.
(They also hypocritically despise "the law" when it doesn't further their agenda or suit their personal lifestyle: pass the reefer).

"Gay marriage" is the worst thing that's ever happened for queer people.
The hostility it is generating will set back all the gains made since Stonewall.

phanto,

Why o’ why do I need to keep re-quoting you?

<<You seem rather confused about why you provide the links. I didn’t ask you to quit the links – I asked you why you need to do both things.>>

Wrong. Here’s what you said:

“Why do you insist on linking to Wikipedia pages on the theory of arguments and then proceed to tell me what is wrong with my argument? I really only need one or the other.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6993#213916)

Nothing there about why I need to do both.

Predictably, though, you are getting back to your amateur psychoanalyses, and as someone who is somewhat qualified in psychology, I can assure you that you’re really bad at it.

<<You said you would quit if I liked and then said that you did it to save time for others. If you are doing it for others why would you quit just because I asked you?>>

Because it annoyed you either way. I’m sorry for not wanting to annoy you.

<<Then after saying you would quit you sarcastically said that because of the argument I promoted that perhaps continuing the links would not hurt.>>

Correct. You clearly didn’t understand what the argumentum ad populum was so I reconsidered my position. You see, my first drafts are on the spot. I respond as I read. So when I first wrote that I wouldn’t provide links for your benefit, I meant it.

<<It seems to me that you are patronisingly suggesting that only those who are well versed in the mechanics of argument have the right to present arguments.>>

Not at all. I hope the above clears up this little misunderstanding.

<<Everyone on this forum has a right to present an argument no matter how lacking in the correct mechanics it is…>>

Absolutely. I’ve never suggested otherwise.

<<…unless you are advocating some kind of censorship.>>

That is a very creative interpretation of what I was saying.

<<Of course if you are not being patronising (playing the man instead of the ball)…>>

That’s not what patronising means.

Obviously some here do not believe in the freedom of belief, that is a belief that has established Western society for at least 5,000 years. That marriage is not a registration by the State that began 2,000 years ago by the Church but a committed relationship between a man and a woman. The licence is only the agreed and signed contract, the relationship between the man and woman is the actual marriage.

The bullying is ocurring by the ill informed Judges because homosexuals want their relationship considered equal to heterosexuals. There is a vast biological difference that will never make homosexual relationships equal to a heterosexual.

//In this case it was not necessary to have a marriage licence (it never is)//

It is if you want to get married.

I need a licence just to go fishing. If I went to renew my licence and the clerk told me 'sorry, I'm a committed vegan so I won't renew your licence', I'd kick up a stink. He's just there to take my money and exchange it for my new fishing licence: it isn't his place to assign moral judgement to my choices, and it certainly isn't his place to deny me my lawfully entitled fishing licence because has strong moral views on the evils of fishing.

//therefore there was no need to push the point in order to reach the stage where the rule of law about contempt needed to be invoked.//

No, there really wasn't. If Kim had accepted that her duty as an American citizen to respect and abide by the laws of her country, and her duty as an employee to do her job, she'd never have been locked up.

But she felt that her interpretation of God's will was more important than the law of the land. She's not alone and she's certainly not the worst, because once we allow 'it's God's will' as a defence for contempt of court, where will the madness end?

//Obviously some here do not believe in the freedom of belief, that is a belief that has established Western society for at least 5,000 years.//

Absolute nonsense. Haven't you heard the good word, Josephus? The world was created in 42BC by the Great Rooster (known to primitive people as the 'Giant Cock'), and all so-called historical evidence which appears before that time has been ejaculated by the Great Rooster to test our faith.

Live long and prosper, Joe :)

Josephus " There is a vast biological difference that will never make homosexual relationships equal to a heterosexual."

Maybe not equal to you Josephus, but it will be LEGAL for gay people to get married in Australia sooner than you think , and not a damned thing will change for anyone else.
So take a deep breath, have a bex and a lay down, and just deal with it.

"Almost all of the civil and uncivil disobedience of the last half-century, from campus uprisings to urban riots to political protests, came from the left. But as an anti-Christian secularism becomes ascendant, dominant and imperious, rumbles are coming from right.

Indeed, from the raw politics of the Summer of Trump, it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.

We are headed for interesting times."

(http://buchanan.org/blog/kim-davis-vs-judicial-tyranny-16520)

If there is a god, if we were created in his image, if we carry in us what he carries, then there is a god given irresistible psychological bent towards homosexuality in some of us. It is not an abomination, it is the irresistible nature of some of us, not chosen but endowed.

In saying that I am sick of the whole “rainbow” bullsheiser movement advocating homosexual marriage. It is a hobby horse of those who seek victim status because of a perceived disenfranchisement from the wider societal base. First world societies have accepted that homosexuality is not a crime..........but some institutions are not transferrable, same sex marriage is one of them.

Toni Lavis "I need a licence just to go fishing."

Why?
Why does there need to be state regulation of virtually everything?

Taking too many fish from a stream may impact various other parties.
But why does anyone need a "licence" to love and live with someone?
What exactly is the POINT?

"If Kim had accepted that her duty as an American citizen to respect and abide by the laws of her country, and her duty as an employee to do her job, she'd never have been locked up."

And all those bureaucrats who swore an oath under Weimar should just hunker down and do their duty processing all those new official Nazi laws and policies without a peep.

There's a good clerk. That pink triangle does look nice on you, Herman.

I wonder where politicians would be in
this country if they didn't toe their party
line on same-sex marriage or any other issue
and said what they really thought.

A good thought Foxy.
I would suggest that Abbott, Hockey, Morrison and Andrews would not still be in politics at all if they further voiced what we all know is in their closed narrow minds.

If the bulk of the population was really against legalizing gay marriage, we wouldn't be having these robust discussions on the issue, because it just wouldn't be an issue...

Fox,

Doubtless they would agree with ex-leader of the Labor Party, Mark Latham,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.
“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?
“We didn’t hear anything.
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

http://tinyurl.com/p6kts6c

Meanwhile in Queensland where the mining boom has ended and country towns are becoming ghost towns, and where streets are awash with drugs, the first priorities of Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's government are to lower the age of consent to anal sex and deep six the successful anti-bikie gang law.

If only Labor's rank and file had any real influence in the Labor Party, eh? But no, Labor is ruled by the leftist 'Progressives' who dabble in reengineering society and union thugs who are out for themselves.

Dear Suse,

I wonder if Mr Abbott will eventually allow his
party members to have a free or - a conscience vote.
I still believe that people should be allowed to
have their say on this issue. Have a Referendum -
and let Australians decide.

Fox, "Have a Referendum"

Too right! What might that be, around $60 million to satisfy the elite clique of faux left.

Not money the said cultural elitists would ever want wasted on those 'Struggle Streets'.

After all, it is only taxpayers' money. There is more where that came from, eh Fox?

otb,

Please -read your post to me on this issue.
And then tell me how should I respond to it?
How would you respond if someone was to talk to you
in this manner?

Fox,

You are a broken record on gay marriage.

Here, sink your teeth into matters of real concern, as jelly-backed Shorten's 'policy free' Labor Opposition should be doing,

"He (Mark Latham) said the biggest social issue facing Australia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street."

otb,

That is not an appropriate response.

Try again Sir and do stick to the topic
under discussion as well as provide
evidence to substantiate your claims.

Currently no one needs a licence to live together [unlike fishing where they are compulsory]. Should homosexual marriage becomes law any two persons receiving individual welfare living together will be considered to being defacto. This will catch students and low income single parent families who rent share, and save the tax payer money.

We will then have officials looking into peoples bedrooms to see if they sleep in the same bed. So the bullying by the new Laws will continue!

We then will be able to dob in persons sleeping in the same bed who are on welfare. So begins the rise of the police State

Dear Josephus,

Perhaps allowing marriage would take care of
any interference in people's lives?

What do you think?

//Toni Lavis "I need a licence just to go fishing."

Why?//

Because that is what the law says.

//But why does anyone need a "licence" to love and live with someone?//

They don't. But they do if they want to get married. Maybe we should abolish marriage. But if we do that then the religious right will make a fuss about being forced to live in sin.

//Have a Referendum"

Too right! What might that be, around $60 million//

It would be far cheaper to just have the Parliament amend the marriage act. But for some reason the religious right object to that idea. Maybe you should try and convince them that letting Parliament sort it out is a better idea.

Dear Toni,

Of course Parliament could settle this matter
by allowing a conscience vote.
But Mr Abbott will have none of it. He
prefers a plebiscite (not power to affect
any changes) or a Referendum - more stalling
and deterrence and of course - expense. If a
Referendum was held outside an election the
cost involved is something like $160 million.
If it was held during an election the cost is
around the $60 million dollar mark. Mr Abbott
prefers it to be outside an election. The cheapest
option is to just allow Parliament to decide.
Which according to the High Court - it has the
power to do. And it could all be over one way or
the other tomorrow - if Mr Abbott would agree.

Toni Lavis "Because that is what the law says."

Yes, let's respect the law when the law says women can't vote.
And Blacks must sit on these bus seats.
And Jews must wear a yellow star.

Oh no, but... THOSE laws were wrong, wrong, wrong and people had *every right* to object/defy/denounce/refuse/etc.

"But if we do that then the religious right will make a fuss about being forced to live in sin."

You, like most advocates, are confusing two different things: The religious/ceremonial "marriage" and the state registered "marriage".

You can "marry" your dog in a church if you can find a church that will do that (St Roch's?).
You just can't *register* your interspecies marriage with the county clerk.

Another common confusion is "weddings" and "marriage".
Advocates often proclaim gay marriage will be good for the economy.
No, *weddings* are good for the economy.

And you can have a *wedding* right now, this evening, if you feel like it.
A gay wedding, a dog wedding, an anything wedding.
Right now! No laws required.

Insight - Capture the Flag: Rebels & Rainbows
http://www.redicecreations.com/TV/2015/Insight-Rebels-Rainbows.php

Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Agenda
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=830
by Br Nathanael (exJew)

US Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Agenda
http://brothernathanaelchannel.com/watch_video.php?v=799BW7BH2MOX

Sodom ~ New Film Exposes the Lies of Organized LGBT 'Acceptance'
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sodomdocumentary17oct14.shtml#top
Greg Felton; America is now fully controlled by Zionists says Canadian researcher

Hidden History of How the U S Was Used to Create Israel Alison Weir

Antidote to Zionism: Boycott Israel (June 5, 2015)

Tony,
Marriage is a biological reality recognized by Western society and the religious all cultures of the World. Recognized by the State to reduce conflict among men as to whom they had children.

Constance is constant.

AJ Philips:

“Why o’ why do I need to keep re-quoting you?”

I know, I know – I feel your pain, I really do. Why you keep engaging with such a dullard as me has me in awe. You truly have the patience of a saint.

I am not surprised though because you are generous to a fault. You know that you intellect is far superior to the rest of us but you willing give us links to help us understand the immense complexity of ‘what you are on about’. None of us could even pretend to know without this help. Most of us have not even the slightest clue about one of those Google things and if we did it would be a waste of ten seconds which you so caringly save us from.

You also help us with our Latin which is very kind of you since it is important to know if we are of a mind to impress others.

It is the way you expend yourself for my sake that I really admire. You have told me twice now that I am not very good at psychoanalysis. You think I would have got the message the first time but it seems no amount of nagging will get through my thick head. You have some credentials in that area too so I should be more respectful because credentials are everything. No one with credentials ever made a mistake.

Not only are you so generous but self-effacing to a fault. You were willing to admit that perhaps you got something wrong but my faith in you was restored when you told us that your first draught was indeed the correct one. How could you have ever doubted yourself?

I am glad that you took the time to tell me what patronising was not. I only wish you had the time and patience to tell me what it is but you have been far too giving already and I understand that many need you.

Or is it perhaps that you really need us?

Toni Lavis:

//In this case it was not necessary to have a marriage licence (it never is)//

“It is if you want to get married.”

It only is if you define marriage as a relationship that must have a certificate. Are you suggesting that there is only one definition of marriage – now that would be ironic?

Suseonline:

“Maybe not equal to you Josephus, but it will be LEGAL for gay people to get married in Australia sooner than you think , and not a damned thing will change for anyone else.”

That is what they said to Kim Davis but things changed for her.

“So take a deep breath, have a bex and a lay down, and just deal with it.”

So if it has already past the post then why do you feel the need to rub people’s noses in it? Don’t you think it will be reasonable to change the law?

Foxy:

“I wonder where politicians would be in
this country if they didn't toe their party
line on same-sex marriage or any other issue
and said what they really thought.”

They may well be out of a job but for some people integrity is more important than having a job. Have you never had to make a decision between your principles and your job?

“Have a Referendum -
and let Australians decide.”

Do you think it is more important to have access to a government marriage certificate than to have a new hospital or school or whatever could be bought for that kind of money?

“Perhaps allowing marriage would take care of
any interference in people's lives?”

They have a right to a certain amount of interference when it is about welfare and similar practical issues. They do so on the basis that people are couples – not married couples. There might be a need for more couple equality but there is no need for marriage equality.

There is no clear reason given by posters here why homosexuals want their relationship registered as marriage other than they want too. Which is not the reason heterosexuals prefer marriage, as they prefer marriage to establish family, not merely because they love each other. My wife's granddaughter lived with a guy for several years but when they had children they decided to marry for the children's sake so she had the same surname.

Dear Phanto,

It's up to Mr Abbott - where his priorities lie
and the costs involved. He would save a great
deal of money if he were to allow a conscience
vote in Parliament. The decision is his to make.

Foxy :
That is true but didn't you call for a referendum? You might not have the power but you seem to think that it would be money well spent.

//There is no clear reason given by posters here why homosexuals want their relationship registered as marriage other than they want too. Which is not the reason heterosexuals prefer marriage, as they prefer marriage to establish family, not merely because they love each other.//

Rubbish, Josephus. I know lots of heterosexual couples who have married with no intention of having kids. I have no intention of having kids when I get married: why would you? Kids are awful.

//Do you think it is more important to have access to a government marriage certificate than to have a new hospital or school or whatever could be bought for that kind of money?//

We can have both: if we let Parliament do their job and amend the marriage act then we can spend the plebiscite money elsewhere. But a lot of people on your side object to that idea for some reason. Maybe you should try and convince them that a plebiscite is an unnecessary waste of money.

We talk about conscience, while we deny Tony Abbot his right of conscience as leader of the Government. WE violate the right of conscience by half the population by forcing a law upon them - this is bullying!

Still no valid reason is given why Homosexuals want to be identified as married; when their sexual act is not a human unit as defined by biology. Only the union of a man and woman can define their act as a human unit - two become one flesh.

"Using a power when there is no point in doing so when it will cause trouble for someone else is bullying."

Which is why I agree with you Phanto, that Kim Davis is being a bully by abusing a power she has been elected to exercise and the Courts - Supreme, District, State and County from whose offices her clerical authority is derived - are holding her to account.

"Should someone's entire career be sacrificed due to an only-just majority decision by a court (not even law created by parliament!) after 26 years working for that county?"

That is entirely Kim Davis' choice. An oath of office to uphold the law and the Constitution is voluntarily given and if she can no longer do that the correct action would be to resign, recuse or reassign her responsibilities.

Really, Shockadelic? "They're just petulant prissy princesses."

Are you judging others by your standards?

The only easily accessible David Ermold comment I could find doesn't seem to support that classification of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8NOGUiDEQo

"The American constitution is also supposed to support freedom of religion."

Not in any unlimited way Shockadelic.

Kim Davis has had more than 26 years to understand that the Supreme Court found [Reynolds v. United States] "that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee).

The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.""

Since that decision was made 137 years ago Kim Davis has no excuse for not understanding this principle.

Her belief and opinions are in no way traduced.

I would have thought as a libertarian you would be happy with any legal change which further reduces restrictions on people's freedom to choose to have their preferred relationship registered by government authorities since the recent decision of the Supreme Court also supercedes the Kentucky "constitutional amendment in November 2004 that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibited the recognition of same-sex relationships under any other name"!

Tony Lavis:

“We can have both: if we let Parliament do their job and amend the marriage act”

At the moment they do not see that as their job nor do many voters. Why do you think they should amend the marriage act?

WmTrevor:

“Kim Davis is being a bully by abusing a power she has been elected to exercise and the Courts”

A bully is not just abusing power for its own sake – the intention is to hurt. That is implied in the word bully. Kim Davis was not hurting anyone by denying them a marriage licence. There is no pain in not having a marriage licence. Millions of couples do not have one and seem no worse off for it.

The same-sex couple however seemed intent on causing pain for her and using the full weight of the law to make sure she felt that pain. Even if it was not deliberate they could have easily backed off when they saw the effect that it was creating and gone elsewhere – then everyone would have had what they wanted.

It does not matter that her reasons were based on religion. She had a conscientious objection to same sex marriage and she is entitled to act according to her conscience as long as she is prepared to accept the consequences which it seems she was willing to do.

If you push for a certificate which gives you nothing but takes away the freedom of someone else to conscientiously object and you do so only because you know that you have the law on your side then you are a bully.

Phanto " There is no pain in not having a marriage licence."
Really? Tell that to the many single mothers and couples 'living in sin' who were vilified over the years by the holier than thou 'morally superior' married community.

Can't you see why the gay community want to be able to be legally married now?
It is still a stigma in many communities to be living together in a defacto relationship.
Just check with Josephus and Runner.

Dear phanto,

Yes, I called for both. That is - either a conscience vote in
Parliament or a Referendum. I thought a
Referendum alongside an election was a more
equitable (cheaper) option and it would allow
people to have an input as well. However I've since found
out the costs involved and of course ideally the best
option seems to be allowing a conscience vote in
Parliament. It's up to Mr Abbott.

Yes Foxy, they do need a conscience vote, but I have a feeling Abbott knows he would be in the minority in allowing such a vote.
So he will try a referendum, and hang the expense!

The budget emergency must be over, so maybe he could increase the aged pension to a liveable level?

Labor was in government from 2007 to 2013. Why is Labor suddenly obsessed with gay marriage?

Could it have anything to do with L'il Willie Shorten ('Whatever She Says') not having any policies?

Not unexpected with all of the old war horses from the failed Gillard government in the Labor opposition 'front bench'. -Including Shorten himself of course.

WmTrevor "I would have thought as a libertarian you would be happy with any legal change which further reduces restrictions on people's freedom to choose to have their preferred relationship registered by government authorities"

I am a classical liberal.
Libertarians are frequently as clueless as anarchists.

Registration of relationships is not "freedom".
That's "rights" not liberty.

I personally distrust the official enshrining of "rights" as we can see with this issue, the "rights" of one party (gay couples) can negate the liberty of another (religious/naturalist clerks or cake bakers).

I don't really see why anyone must have the "right" to officially register any relationship.
Those are personal "contracts" that could be privately negotiated.

And if such registration exists, it should be extended to ALL relationships between consenting adults, including bigamous and incestous ones.
The "reform" is half-hearted and hypocritical.

The Left proclaim the primacy of law/government only when it suits them.
When it doesn't, it's stick it to the Man, down with the Fascist System!

Suseonline, if the stigma of being unmarried has not disappeared for straight couples, why would it vanish for gays?

The same two-tier status will now apply to gay relationships too.

The married ones are deemed legit and respectable and the cohabitors are just irresponsible immature "playmates".

Now queer folk can look forward to the "Don't you love me that much" speech. Yippee!

//At the moment they do not see that as their job nor do many voters.//

It's not Parliament's job to amend legislation? Well, I have been sorely misinformed.

//Why do you think they should amend the marriage act?//

Because it's the right thing to do.

//The same-sex couple however seemed intent on causing pain for her and using the full weight of the law to make sure she felt that pain//

U.S. District Judge David Bunning is not a same-sex couple, phanto. That would be physically impossible. You seem to be confusing this case with other recent cases reported in the media where same-sex couples have brought civil suits against cake decorators. Davis wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, she wasn't issuing them to anyone, and there were equal numbers of same-sex and opposite-sex couples making the complaint against her. The Judge found in their favour, quite reasonably I thought, because she was refusing to do her job. The one she's been getting paid to do even though she refuses to do it. Must be good being a civil servant in Kentucky. If I conscientiously objected to doing my job I'd be sacked on the spot.

//Even if it was not deliberate they could have easily backed off when they saw the effect that it was creating and gone elsewhere – then everyone would have had what they wanted.//

So every couple in her county who wants to get married should be inconvenienced just because she feels she has a God-given right not to do her job (but to still get paid for it)? If she objected to the nature of the work that much, why didn't she just quit? An employer can't force you to work for them.

So in summation: Kim Davis didn't want to do her job but wanted to keep going in to work and getting paid for showing up instead of just seeking employment elsewhere. As a result she was found guilty of contempt, jailed, then freed again five days later when her deputies agreed to start issuing marriage licences.

//If you push for a certificate which gives you nothing but takes away the freedom of someone else to conscientiously object//

Nobody took away her freedom to conscientiously object.

//Only the union of a man and woman can define their act as a human unit//

Cool story, bro. You should write a paper. You'd win a Nobel for sure.

If you could prove any of your claims.

Toni Lavis,
Are you totally ignorant of how babies are conceived?

//Are you totally ignorant of how babies are conceived?//

No, I've had it all properly explained in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwo8qxUit00

If a couple buy a house and get properly settled in, buy furniture and so on, have three hot meals a day and wait for a bit then a baby will just pop up.

"Kim Davis didn't want to do her job but wanted to keep going in to work and getting paid for showing up instead of just seeking employment elsewhere"

You think her job consists primarily of issuing marriage licenses?
Did she get RSI from that big red rubber stamp with "MARRIED" on it?
I'm sure there were 1000 other duties she was "getting paid for".

"when her deputies agreed to start issuing marriage licences."

Which they could have done all along.

Lucky Australia whose main concern seems to be the right of everybody, male or female, to have a wife or husband, whichever he/she prefers.

[Written from Europe, where the main concern is how to cope with the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees coming from traditionally Muslim countries (where the absence of this right is the least of their concerns) as a result of … whatever is the politically correct reason.]

//You think her job consists primarily of issuing marriage licenses?
Did she get RSI from that big red rubber stamp with "MARRIED" on it?
I'm sure there were 1000 other duties she was "getting paid for".//

I think her job consists of all the duties she is required to carry out, even the unpleasant ones. If I told my head chef I was happy to do anything in the kitchen unless it involved salad, I'd be sacked. A chef who won't handle salad is a chef who isn't doing his job properly and isn't much use in a kitchen where a lot of the meals get served with salad. You can't just pick and choose what you want to do at work unless are very fortunate and have a cushy job or are wealthy enough not to need the work. Unfortunately most of us live and work in the real world.

//Which they could have done all along.//

But for some reason didn't. Maybe they just didn't like Kim and wanted to see her locked up for a bit? Lots of people hate their bosses.

""when her deputies agreed to start issuing marriage licences."
Which they could have done all along."

Not really, since Kim Davis had instructed her staff not to and would not sign the licences. Both of which requirements were addressed with Judge Bunning's rulings.

Too right, George. "Lucky Australia whose main concern seems to be the right of everybody, male or female, to have a wife or husband, whichever he/she prefers."

Probably not the main concern during finals season, though.

Toni Lavis,
I now recognize you live in a fantasy world, of self importance of bullying others against their conscience.

None of the offenses you charge others of deserve court time, fines of $135,000 or imprisonment. Dismissal or find another cake shop would seem responsible rather than occupying court time.

I couldn't include this earlier, Shockadelic, not having it available in a copy and paste format.

From pages 69 and 70 of the transcript:

"Q. But just so I'm clear, but if your office isn't issuing a marriage license, it's not receiving any funds from marriage licenses, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, Ms. Davis, does any deputy clerk in your office have any authority to issue a marriage license that doesn't come from your authority as the county clerk?
A. No, they do not.
MR. GANNAM: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I just have a couple of follow-ups, and I will try to be as specific as I can. Given your testimony today, it's not your intention on complying with the Court's August 12th, 2015, order which enjoined you from applying your "no marriage license" policy; is that correct? Yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And have you instructed your deputy clerks not to comply with the order as well?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Very well. You may step down. Thank you.

[And after a redirect}

THE COURT: All right. And you testified previously, ma'am, in July that -- and I have my notes; I know the transcript reflects the actual language that was used, but I didn't realize you had seven or eight. You may have hired someone part time in the interim to help with the elections, as you've stated, but several of the deputies shared your belief, and at least one had indicated that they would issue the licenses if you would allow it; is that still the case?
THE WITNESS: It is."

//I now recognize you live in a fantasy world, of self importance of bullying others against their conscience.

None of the offenses you charge others of deserve court time//

I've never charged anyone with an a offence, Josephus. The only person I've sought to have charged with an offence is some thug who coward-punched me.

What a horrible bully I am, seeking to have that guy prosecuted instead of just letting him in accordance with his conscience and punch strangers.

//Dismissal or find another cake shop would seem responsible rather than occupying court time.//

Josephus, I know you have your own unique and creative interpretations when it comes to facts, but there were NO CAKES involved in this case. If you're not interested in the facts of the case then why even bother posting?

Suseonline:

“Really? Tell that to the many single mothers and couples 'living in sin' who were vilified over the years by the holier than thou 'morally superior' married community.”

We are not talking about society as it was but as it is now –the call for a change in legislation is happening now and so what problems that people had in the past are irrelevant unless they are still happening.

“It is still a stigma in many communities to be living together in a defacto relationship.”

That is a problem for those communities. This not about same-sex couples relationship with their communities but their relationship with the government. Governments cannot change legislation because some citizens have problems with their communities. Many homosexual people have problems with their churches but you would not expect governments to interfere with that relationship.

Toni Lavis:

“It's not Parliament's job to amend legislation? Well, I have been sorely misinformed.”

Of course it is their job are you being deliberately obtuse? It is not their job to amend any legislation but only that which seems to them to have good reasons to amend.

//Why do you think they should amend the marriage act?//
“Because it's the right thing to do.”

Why do you think it is right? You seem very keen to change the legislation but very reluctant to give us reasons for doing so. Perhaps you do not have any.

“Davis wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, she wasn't issuing them to anyone, and there were equal numbers of same-sex and opposite-sex couples making the complaint against her.”

Why then were the issues of her religious beliefs raised? Did she refuse opposite-sex couples based on religious principles? Why all the fuss if there was no discrimination involved? A county clerk not doing their job is hardly front page news.

Toni Lavis "I think her job consists of all the duties she is required to carry out, even the unpleasant ones."

And what of freedom of religion?
If those "duties" are believed to be unholy/sinful (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia), the worker believes their VERY SOUL is endangered by doing that work.

You may find this ridiculous, but it is not an insignificant matter to them.

And the American constitution and anti-discrimination laws affirm citizens' rights to hold ridiculous beliefs.

So you cannot prevent such people working for you, as that would violate both the constitution and the anti-discrimination laws created by the same namby-pamby types enforcing gay "rights" on one and all.

The real issue here seems to be that one, and only one, person had authority to sign the licenses.

This is rather short-sighted.

What if that person was in a car accident and went into a coma for 3 months?

Everyone's applications (straight or gay, Christian or atheist) would have to wait until a new clerk was appointed.

The sensible policy would be to have several people authorised, then it wouldn't matter if one was an objecting Christian/Muslim/naturalist, whether they fell into a coma or whether they wandered off into the desert with amnesia.

*Someone else* could easily sign the stupid paper.

Listen to the research done by DR. Richard Oscar Lopez raised by two mums. Type his name into your web browser.

Everyone else seems to have missed it, but well done with that joke Runner.

On the sites where Kim Davis is commented upon, there is a flood of hate and vitriolic comment about her, yet none have been affected by her action. They are brainwashed using terms of "homophobic" and "Hate" where conscientious objection is upheld to defining marriage as a contractual relationship between two persons of the same gender. Some in America even suggest she should be murdered.

Is this the type of violent society we want in Australia, or are we more civilized; and respect freedom of belief in scientific and historical facts.

hhmm so cool

The fact is not all intelligent well adjusted homosexuals want to register their relationship with the Government, so this denies the claim marriage is a human right of equality; otherwise it would be accepted by all that the current situation is a a violation of their human rights. A basic human right must apply equally to all.