FWIS3

It's official. We have marriage equality in the U.S. Yes!

I've always been for it. I can't even fathom or comprehend the reasons against it. Even if I was against it, I can't come up with an argument for how it would harm me, my marriage or anyone else. Recently someone very close to me came out. So now it's personal. When I first read the first news story, I cried.

This post would be complete if we had a rainbow smilie.

Excellent

Thumper wrote:When I first read the first news story, I cried.

Me too. I didn't expect to, but I did.

Kind of a busy add filled site, but here is Cracked's hilarious 30 second guide to dealing with the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality.

Another hit close to home. A high school classmate of mine has been in a long term, faithful, same sex relationship. It's not that they just now get to be as "married" as Mrs. T and I. They have two adopted sons. Up until this ruling, they couldn't both be the fathers of both sons. One was listed as the adopted father of one son, and the other for the second son. In our eyes (society), my friend had NO relationship with one of his sons. I can't imagine what that felt like to him. Not to mention all the legal he|| they could have had to go through should one of the fathers fell ill or died, or one of the boys fell ill while his only "father" was away.
Special rights and "gay agenda" my @ss. It makes the actions of that @sshat clerk in Kentucky all the more preposterous and infuriating.

I honestly can't believe why people give a crap about her. I refuse to give her any attention, because she's clearly an attention whore.

Like geez lady, if you don't want to do it fine, quit your job if you think your job has stuff in it you don't want to do. Problem solved!

Pretty much my thoughts. You're free to practice your religion by yourself and believe in any crap you want. When you apply for a job, interview for a job, and then accept money to do a job, the employer has a reasonable expectation that you try to perform all of the specified duties. I don't think I can take a job at ODOT and then say, "Umm, my god doesn't believe in me testing roads or using excel."

People give a crap about her because the outcome of this whole legal drama has huge implications on civil rights, and not just gay marriage. The federal judge has already pushed the envelope in the wrong direction by releasing her with the restriction that she not interfere with any of her subordinates in the clerk's office in granting marriage licenses.

So now, according to that judge, it's OK for a government servant to not do her job because of religious objections as long as she doesn't interfere with others who do her job for her. That's not OK with me and it shouldn't be OK with anyone who respects the rule of law.

It's all well and good for people to tell her to do her job or quit, but if she does neither, we have a real problem given she can't be fired. This is a big deal.

I agree entirely Geo. And the big time elected officials coming to her defense makes me completely lose what minuscule respect I ever had for them. I think the judge was worried about backlash but he let her off the hook and made an incorrect legal decision.

It's possible the judge may well have been worried about how the public would receive his ruling, I don't know. But that's no reason to stray from the rule of law. If he in fact yielded to public pressure, then he should step down too.

We really need to have a constitutional basis to remove people from elected state-level positions in federal court. Fat chance.

I believe he had the option of fining her instead of jailing her once she was found in contempt. But in looking further into it, he saw there was no shortage of religious supremist whackos stepping forward to give her all kinds of money. So she would be able to continue to pay her fines and impose her religious will on others and not do her elected job. So, while surprising to some as extreme, he jailed her. Then I think he kind of ignored the law and looked for a solution to the original problem: Can we get marriage licenses to the people in this county? When the answer was yes, he let her go.

I find a similarity although without the direct governmental employee angle to employers who provide healthcare to employees as part of their benefits package. Yet somehow, some are able to refuse to allow birth control or abortions as part of that package. No, healthcare is part of what you agreed to pay me to do the job you want me to do. You have 0 right to personally wade into my healthcare decisions and impose your personal religious will on me.

And then, there was the Hobby Lobby case, in which SCOTUS declared that corporations had a religion. Now, they can have healthcare policies that deny birth control to their employees. Isn't that special?

Thing is, same sex marriage wasn't decided on the 1st Amendment, it was decided on the 14th - Equal Protection- you can't treat one group different than you treat another. In other words, if you allow straight people to enter into the legal contract that we call marriage, and they get to enjoy all the legal governmental rights and responsibilities, we cannot exclude same sex couples from entering into the same contracts. No more than we could exclude mixed race couples.

The clerk in Kentucky apparently doesn't understand the law or the Constitution. She can't impose her religious beliefs onto her subordinates, that's a violation of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. She is trying to establish HER religion as the ONLY acceptable religious doctrine in that office. She is also in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as described above. She may well end up back in jail. My hope is that her lawyer and Rev. Huckabee go with her.

[Deleted - move along. Nothing to see here.]

geonuc wrote:[Deleted - move along. Nothing to see here.]

But..... it was probably the best post ever!

Dang, missed it.