Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't like Kim Davis. How low can you go? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...o-baptist-church-protests-kim-davis/74220666/
Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail
- Thread starter Homicidal_Squirrel
- Start date
- Status
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Heck, I hope every day I'm not be liked by the WBC. The day that they like me is a day I'll consider low.
Yeah, among other things, the WBC doesn't like oathbreakers (marriage is an oath, there was an oath of office), and they don't make a distinctions between major & minor sins- they're all equally bad.
At least one prominent Mormon has weighed in against her, too, abeit speaking obliquely.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/2...entucky-clerk-over-approach-to-gay-marriages/
At least one prominent Mormon has weighed in against her, too, abeit speaking obliquely.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/2...entucky-clerk-over-approach-to-gay-marriages/
Ryujin
Legend
Looks like she lost ANOTHER appeal.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/kim_davis_loses_another_appeal?recruiter_id=17
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/kim_davis_loses_another_appeal?recruiter_id=17
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Excellent well!
tomBitonti
Hero
Stepping back for a clearer view: A lot of the problem here seems to arise from the intersection of a government definition of marriage with a religious one.
Working from that position, could one argue that the government should not usurp a religiously laden term ("marriage") and should substitute a different one?
I understand the argument that calling civil unions something other than marriage takes away a part of the special meaning of marriage, and therefore assigns a lesser status to civil unions as thereby defined. But there does seem to be something to the religious position, which is that the overlap forces a civil definition of marriage onto the religious one.
On the other hand, is it religion that has usurped the meaning, and religion should introduce, as has LDS, of a "santified marriage", or something similar, to create the differentiation which is desired?
In regards to the cases discussed in prior posts, it seems that the clerk has a mistaken belief that they are performing a solemn religious duty, when the truth is that they are performing a (still solemn) civil duty.
Thx!
TomB
Working from that position, could one argue that the government should not usurp a religiously laden term ("marriage") and should substitute a different one?
I understand the argument that calling civil unions something other than marriage takes away a part of the special meaning of marriage, and therefore assigns a lesser status to civil unions as thereby defined. But there does seem to be something to the religious position, which is that the overlap forces a civil definition of marriage onto the religious one.
On the other hand, is it religion that has usurped the meaning, and religion should introduce, as has LDS, of a "santified marriage", or something similar, to create the differentiation which is desired?
In regards to the cases discussed in prior posts, it seems that the clerk has a mistaken belief that they are performing a solemn religious duty, when the truth is that they are performing a (still solemn) civil duty.
Thx!
TomB
Sure...but you won't win. Too many anthropological, legal, definitional and practical obstacles to overcome to prevail.
Plus, there is the concern that those who oppose SSM the most would object to it in any form, regardless of name.
Last edited:
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Pretty much. Originally, marriage was all about who got your junk when you died. Marriage just determined the legitimacy of your offspring, and how much of your junk they got. Wives didn't have much in rights to your junk because they were part of your junk.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar Threads
