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.