SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[StLucieBengal]

(09-10-2015, 01:40 PM)Benton Wrote:

You want to get rid of the Constitution? WTF Lucie!?

There should be no benefits to a government marriage. The whole reason we have a gov marriage was to prevent interracial marriages.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no benefits to a government marriage.   The whole reason we have a gov marriage was to prevent interracial marriages.

Ahem . . .

(09-10-2015, 12:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  I don't deal in absolutes and no realistic person does. 

Shooting fish in a barrel would actually be a challenge comparatively speaking.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2015, 12:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would if she would be afforded the same chances to get citizenship as others.    Or we could have broken the law and had her here illegally.  But we like to follow the rules as theyy are written.   We have a standard that we keep in our family.   So how will we teach that to our girls if we break the rules ourselves?

Why wouldn't she be?  Just file the paperwork and follow the rules.  Right?

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 01:34 PM)Benton Wrote: Define employed.

em·ploy
(ĕm-ploi′)
tr.v.em·ployed, em·ploy·ing, em·ploys
1.
a. To provide work to (someone) for pay: "agreed to employ the job applicant."

[Benton]

(09-10-2015, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no benefits to a government marriage.   The whole reason we have a gov marriage was to prevent interracial marriages.

Wow. That's not correct at all. It started in Europe several hundred years ago due to two areas: conflict with the Catholic Church (which had previously sanctioned the bulk marriages) which didn't always recognize marriages it didn't agree with and a need to keep track of citizens going to colonies in the Americas and Africas.

For the US, we had a hodge podge of state laws — yes some preventing interracial marriages — that made marriage laws difficult. Just like gay marriage, you could be married in one state, but not in another because of someone's race, age, etc.

But the biggest reason? Money. States figured out they can charge $X for every married couple and have an already existing office take care of the paperwork.

So, no. It's not about race. It's about money.

[Benton]

(09-10-2015, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: em·ploy
(ĕm-ploi′)
tr.v.em·ployed, em·ploy·ing, em·ploys
1.
a. To provide work to (someone) for pay: "agreed to employ the job applicant."

Ah. In that case, nope.

[SteelCitySouth]

[Rotobeast]

(09-10-2015, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You can have him/her.  It's nothing but jibba jabba Bollocks anyway

Cannot........resist......... ugh....

[BmorePat87]

Sorry for the source but it was a good quote



i wonder if Huck would have crossed the aisle for that democrat if he cited religion as his reasoning for blocking integration.

[Benton]

(09-10-2015, 04:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sorry for the source but it was a good quote



i wonder if Huck would have crossed the aisle for that democrat if he cited religion as his reasoning for blocking integration.

"I am an Alabama Democrat, not a national Democrat. I’m not kin to those folks. The difference between a national Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a Communist and a non-Communist."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/sfeature/quotes.html

That and something someone said earlier in this thread about Davis being a Republican reminded me of Wallace's quote here. And Wallace always reminds me of:

"This civil rights bill will wind up putting a homeowner in jail because he doesn’t sell his home to someone that some bureaucrat thinks he ought to sell it to. My friends, a man’s home is his castle…and he ought to be able to sell it to people with blue eyes and green teeth if he wants to; it’s his home."

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2015, 02:05 PM)Benton Wrote:

Wow. That's not correct at all. It started in Europe several hundred years ago due to two areas: conflict with the Catholic Church (which had previously sanctioned the bulk marriages) which didn't always recognize marriages it didn't agree with and a need to keep track of citizens going to colonies in the Americas and Africas.

For the US, we had a hodge podge of state laws — yes some preventing interracial marriages — that made marriage laws difficult. Just like gay marriage, you could be married in one state, but not in another because of someone's race, age, etc.

But the biggest reason? Money. States figured out they can charge $X for every married couple and have an already existing office take care of the paperwork.

So, no. It's not about race. It's about money.

Actually, even that is not correct. Civil marriages are very old indeed. In fact, very few marriages during the middle ages in Europe took place in churches, and that was a time frame where the population was arguably much more religious and religion played more of a part in their daily lives than today. Even marriage during Biblical times among the Jews was more of a civil construct than a religious one when you read about it. It just so happens they had a theocracy and so it is more difficult to disentangle them. Marriage was a civil affair in most ancient cultures as well as it dealt with property ownership.

The fact is the same, though, that there is a huge precedent for civil marriage and to claim it is nothing more than a recent invention for control is laughable, to put it mildly.

[Benton]

(09-10-2015, 05:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, even that is not correct. Civil marriages are very old indeed. In fact, very few marriages during the middle ages in Europe took place in churches, and that was a time frame where the population was arguably much more religious and religion played more of a part in their daily lives than today. Even marriage during Biblical times among the Jews was more of a civil construct than a religious one when you read about it. It just so happens they had a theocracy and so it is more difficult to disentangle them. Marriage was a civil affair in most ancient cultures as well as it dealt with property ownership.

The fact is the same, though, that there is a huge precedent for civil marriage and to claim it is nothing more than a recent invention for control is laughable, to put it mildly.

I think that's probably where we'd disagree. Marriages, typically, were agreements between families. How they were recognized, the traditions, varied by culture. But unless there was a dispute, the government did not get involved much until the 16-1700s depending on country.

Before that, you've got laws in some of the major civilizations, like Rome, typically aimed at regulating the contract part of it, or promoting population controls. But there wasn't the regulation of things like we have today.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2015, 06:00 PM)Benton Wrote: I think that's probably where we'd disagree. Marriages, typically, were agreements between families. How they were recognized, the traditions, varied by culture. But unless there was a dispute, the government did not get involved much until the 16-1700s depending on country.

Before that, you've got laws in some of the major civilizations, like Rome, typically aimed at regulating the contract part of it, or promoting population controls. But there wasn't the regulation of things like we have today.

No, I can't disagree that marriage is more regulated now than ever before. That is true for most things. But it should be noted that the reason the government did get involved in disputes was because the marriage held a civil value. It was a legal instrument. Less contracts in general were written down, your word was as good as such, so a marriage license wasn't necessary. But the civil value was similar.

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no benefits to a government marriage.   The whole reason we have a gov marriage was to prevent interracial marriages.

Marriage has always been a social contract that was recognized by which ever political structure ruled the jurisdiction.

Whether it was family based tribes uniting or a transfer of property between two people in a town with the promise that one's daughter would marry the other's son, it has always been something society recognized. 

Even within the US, the government  recognized it because it had been done that way for centuries as it was a contract. 

[BmorePat87]

http://time.com/4029400/kim-davis-denied-me-a-marriage-license/

The actual victims speak out.

Quote:I remember dreaming of what it would be like to walk into our clerk’s office in Rowan County, Ky., and be handed the piece of paper that would legalize our love and protect our family. But when we went to our county courthouse on the morning of June 30 to apply for a marriage license, we left without one. Clerk Kim Davis denied us our fundamental right to marry.

I found it incredible that after the wait for this decision someone who was opposed to it would block my right to lawfully obtain a marriage license. We were astounded that an elected official was not performing her job, regardless of the reason.

Quote:We never wanted Davis to go to jail, and we never asked her to change her mind about same-sex marriage. We just wanted to be able to get our marriage license like every other couple in the country. We’re so grateful that we were finally able to obtain our license and get married on Sept. 4, and we hope no other loving couple has to face the humiliation of being turned away like we were.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Saw this on another board I post on, and it sums up my feelings about government involvement in marriage. I'd apply this to gun ownership as well.

The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state.[7][8] Individuals that align with this libertarian stance argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it falsely presupposes that we merely have the privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example of a right (as opposed to a privilege), those that are born in the US receive a birth certificate (certifying that they have been born), not a birth license (which would give them license so they could be born). Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by God, so no authorization from the state is required. Some US states have started citing the state specifically as a party in the marriage contract[9] which is seen by some as an infringement.[10]

[fredtoast]

How does the Libertarian Party plan on dealing with the lack of oral sex after marriage?

"AMERICA'S SECRET #1 KILLER....MARRIAGE MURDERS THE BLOW JOB"

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-11-2015, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does the Libertarian Party plan on dealing with the lack of oral sex after marriage?

"AMERICA'S SECRET #1 KILLER....MARRIAGE MURDERS THE BLOW JOB"

What's a blow job?? 

$5 says you can't guess my marital status.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2015, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does the Libertarian Party plan on dealing with the lack of oral sex after marriage?

SSM

[*Nately120*]

(09-11-2015, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does the Libertarian Party plan on dealing with the lack of oral sex after marriage?

"AMERICA'S SECRET #1 KILLER....MARRIAGE MURDERS THE BLOW JOB"

The 2nd Amendment and/or Capitalistic free-markets will solve that dilemma, too!