Kim Davis’ May Be Headed Back To Jail

[Miles]

One can only hope. Anyway . . . . .


"Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis may have breached a federal court order when she heavily modified marriage licenses to remove her name, an attorney for one of Davis’ deputies warns in a filing Friday.

Davis, the elected county clerk who believes same-sex marriage is a sin, spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge’s order that she issue the licenses to same-sex couples.

Deputy Clerk Brian Mason began providing the forms to couples earlier this month while Davis remained in jail, and he has continued to give them out following her release.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning warned Davis not to interfere with deputies when he released her from custody, but she altered the marraige licenses in several places when she returned to work the following week.

The changes removed any mention of Davis’ name or her office, and the form now states that it was issued pursuant to a federal court order rather than the county clerk."
source

[Kenisaw]

I can't believe you can get college credit for a "History of Espionage" class.

[fstopper]

Why couldn't someone else sign the licence, simple solutions are usually the best ones.If someone i know asked for my approval to join ISIS, i would not approve as it it against my principles.The ACLU is only too happy to bash someone's head for the slightest reason.

[tugofwarstrum]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]
Having faith is like having a penis, it's great and can do many wondrous things, but for all terms and purposes is meant to be kept in your pants not in everyone's face, everyone's lives, their choices, nor shall it be used to decide what someone can or cannot do. (paraphrased by some comedian I once listened to, can't quite find out who)

[KRBondar]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]
I think there should be two categories of marriage licences: heterosex and same sex.
To my mind it naturally follows that as only heterosexual unions can produce children, that should be part of the deal.
I know all about test tube babies and surrogates and adoption, but I am considering the right of the child to enter life into a conventional setting. He/she may change his/her preferences at the age of majority, be as gay as he/she wants to be, even enter into a gay marriage.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]
I think there should be two categories of marriage licences: heterosex and same sex.
To my mind it naturally follows that as only heterosexual unions can produce children, that should be part of the deal.
I know all about test tube babies and surrogates and adoption, but I am considering the right of the child to enter life into a conventional setting. He/she may change his/her preferences at the age of majority, be as gay as he/she wants to be, even enter into a gay marriage.

If your going to use having children as a "Category" of marriage, then wouldn't you also need to differentiate between heterosexual couples who intend to have children and those who don't. Some heterosexual couples may simply not be interested in creating children, for whatever reasons. Also what about heterosexual couples who are incapable of having offspring for whatever reason?

I'm not sure I understand why having children should be a distinction in marriage.

Also, we know with absolute certainty that a heterosexual marriage is no guarantee that the parents will be good parents. There are plenty of examples of abusive heterosexual parents. Or even heterosexual parents who even meant well but still did a really bad job of raising children.

I just don't see where heterosexual parents are much of a guarantee of anything.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 24 by KRBondar]
Tell us how you feel about the other unconventional marriages, those of mixed race couples?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]
I think there should be two categories of marriage licences: heterosex and same sex.
To my mind it naturally follows that as only heterosexual unions can produce children, that should be part of the deal.
I know all about test tube babies and surrogates and adoption, but I am considering the right of the child to enter life into a conventional setting. He/she may change his/her preferences at the age of majority, be as gay as he/she wants to be, even enter into a gay marriage.

Why should there be marriage licenses at all? Shouldn't this be a matter of private contract?

[KRBondar]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

I was fortunate enough to be born into a family with Mom and Dad. Dad was drafted into WWII when I was nine, and died soon after, so I also experienced a childhood with a single parent. Believe me, it is different.
We live in a society governed by laws and conventions and a marriage licence is proof of legitimacy and commitment. No family is ever perfect, but to my mind superior to any other type of living arrangement. By the way, here I am talking about monogamy, because polygamous families are just another kettle of fish.

[KRBondar]

[Replying to post 26 by Bust Nak]

Race is just the pigment in the skin

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

I was fortunate enough to be born into a family with Mom and Dad. Dad was drafted into WWII when I was nine, and died soon after, so I also experienced a childhood with a single parent. Believe me, it is different.
We live in a society governed by laws and conventions and a marriage licence is proof of legitimacy and commitment. No family is ever perfect, but to my mind superior to any other type of living arrangement. By the way, here I am talking about monogamy, because polygamous families are just another kettle of fish.

My father died when I was 9 too. So much for my heterosexual parental arrangement.

Also, what about children who have abusive fathers, or abusive mothers? I just don't see where there is any merit in suggesting that having parents of the same gender would necessarily be a problem I highly suspect that this would be nothing more than a bias against same-sex marriage. Arguing that it's not in the child's best interest seems like nothing more than a "low blow" for lack of a better excuse for bigotry.

Consider the following: I just looked this up on the fly and found the following information.

In the USA:
11.7 million single parents in 2010
9.9 million of those single parents were custodial single moms
1.8 million of those single parents were custodial single dads

How can we make a case against same-gender parents as being "abnormal" when we already have so many single heterosexual parents? And these stats don't even include children who have abusive parents.

What's normal? Both you and I lost our fathers to death early on. Does that make us "abnormal"?

Also, if there's a God why would God allow a child to lose a parent. Some children lose both parents.

I have a cousin who was just murdered recently by her heterosexual abusive husband. Now her children are motherless, and they have a father who is in prison for having murdered their mother.

Is that "normal"? Clearly not.

In our world today I just don't think it makes any sense to argue that same-sex parents aren't "normal" as a reason to treat same-sex unions or marriages any differently when it comes to raising children.

We just don't live in a world that is "perfect enough" to make those kinds of arguments stick.