Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Dazchan]

It was a court ruling based on a constitutional amendment that was adopted in the 19th century. So technically, gay marriage was legalized in the 19th century and Davis has been doing her job wrong all along. Technically, a lot of people have been doing their jobs wrong for a long time. It warms my rusty old heart to know that they have finally started enforcing the law after all these years, after everything that my generation sacrificed and all the work that we put in to get the 14th amendment added to the constitution.

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for some people to be excluded when they said that all citizens of the United States have equal rights.

[Highfort]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

I agree, I find it strange that you think they thought anyone should be allowed to marry. Clearly, the solution to not abridging people's rights is to remove marriage as a right. That way, gay people won't be able to get married - because neither can straight people or anyone! Won't that be just brilliant?

[Dyakovo]

It was a court ruling based on a constitutional amendment that was adopted in the 19th century. So technically, gay marriage was legalized in the 19th century and Davis has been doing her job wrong all along. Technically, a lot of people have been doing their jobs wrong for a long time. It warms my rusty old heart to know that they have finally started enforcing the law after all these years, after everything that my generation sacrificed and all the work that we put in to get the 14th amendment added to the constitution.

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

Are homosexuals people?

[Ifreann]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

Are homosexuals people?

Only the human homosexuals. So far.

[Stellonia]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for some people to be excluded when they said that all citizens of the United States have equal rights.

I wonder why you believe that a group of men 150 years ago intended for people of the same sex to marry, and that for some reason, no one bothered to object to any alleged abridgment of their right to marry someone of the same sex at the time.

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

Are homosexuals people?

Certainly, just like you and I. What's your point?

[Stellonia]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for people of the same sex to marry all along when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

I agree, I find it strange that you think they thought anyone should be allowed to marry. Clearly, the solution to not abridging people's rights is to remove marriage as a right. That way, gay people won't be able to get married - because neither can straight people or anyone! Won't that be just brilliant?

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

[Gauthier]

Are homosexuals people?

Only the human homosexuals. So far.

Gay animals just do it, they don't wait until after several dates.

[Redsection]

why is this still open,the problem has been resolved.

[Ifreann]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for some people to be excluded when they said that all citizens of the United States have equal rights.

I wonder why you believe that a group of men 150 years ago intended for people of the same sex to marry, and that for some reason, no one bothered to object to any alleged abridgment of their right to marry someone of the same sex at the time.

Do you believe that those same dead men intended for people of the negro race to be allowed sit at the front of vehicles that didn't exist at the time?

[Highfort]

I agree, I find it strange that you think they thought anyone should be allowed to marry. Clearly, the solution to not abridging people's rights is to remove marriage as a right. That way, gay people won't be able to get married - because neither can straight people or anyone! Won't that be just brilliant?

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

Outside of government recognition, marriage is a private contract. The reason why same-sex marriage recognition by the government was so important was because it afforded same-sex couples the same benefits, opportunities, tax codes, and treatment as heterosexual married couples.

If the government simply didn't recognize any marriage, then same-sex marriage would be a non-issue since heterosexuals getting married and homosexuals getting married would produce no difference in how the government was treating them. Of course, when this is brought up, defenders of marriage get uppity about their privileges as married couples being taken away.

[Stellonia]

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

Outside of government recognition, marriage is a private contract. The reason why same-sex marriage recognition by the government was so important was because it afforded same-sex couples the same benefits, opportunities, tax codes, and treatment as heterosexual married couples.

If the government simply didn't recognize any marriage, then same-sex marriage would be a non-issue since heterosexuals getting married and homosexuals getting married would produce no difference in how the government was treating them. Of course, when this is brought up, defenders of marriage get uppity about their privileges as married couples being taken away.

Then why did the Supreme Court rule that all marriage, or rather, the recognition of marriage by the government, is a fundamental right?

[Ifreann]

I agree, I find it strange that you think they thought anyone should be allowed to marry. Clearly, the solution to not abridging people's rights is to remove marriage as a right. That way, gay people won't be able to get married - because neither can straight people or anyone! Won't that be just brilliant?

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

Because what is being discussed is the legal institution of marriage, which absolutely does not exist if not legally recognised.

[Stellonia]

I wonder why you believe that a group of men 150 years ago intended for people of the same sex to marry, and that for some reason, no one bothered to object to any alleged abridgment of their right to marry someone of the same sex at the time.

Do you believe that those same dead men intended for people of the negro race to be allowed sit at the front of vehicles that didn't exist at the time?

They did not envision that anyone would be riding in motorized buses, or that motorized buses would have even been invented.

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

Because what is being discussed is the legal institution of marriage, which absolutely does not exist if not legally recognised.

Marriage is much, much more than a legal institution.

[Gauthier]

I agree, I find it strange that you think they thought anyone should be allowed to marry. Clearly, the solution to not abridging people's rights is to remove marriage as a right. That way, gay people won't be able to get married - because neither can straight people or anyone! Won't that be just brilliant?

Marriage is a right. However, I fail to see how a marriage does not exist simply because the government does not formally recognize it.

Tax benefits, inheritance, the right to see a loved one in intensive care...

[Highfort]

Then why did the Supreme Court rule that all marriage, or rather, the recognition of marriage by the government, is a fundamental right?

I believe the ruling was as a result of marriage constituting a part of our civil society that the government would like to encourage to foster stable families. I'm not quite sure; I myself am not a huge fan of marriage but if the government wants to recognize it, then that's its business; however it may not recognize only certain marriages and not others.

The case ruling on same-sex marriage was based on the precedent that heterosexual marriage has set in this nation - it's granted benefits, given special place on the tax code as compared to single individuals, and is treated differently when it comes to immigration status, welfare, and social security. If citizens in heterosexual marriage gets these benefits, then by the 14th Amendment they must be extended to citizens who are in a same-sex marriage.

[Stellonia]

Then why did the Supreme Court rule that all marriage, or rather, the recognition of marriage by the government, is a fundamental right?

I believe the ruling was as a result of marriage constituting a part of our civil society that the government would like to encourage to foster stable families. I'm not quite sure; I myself am not a huge fan of marriage but if the government wants to recognize it, then that's its business; however it may not recognize only certain marriages and not others.

The case ruling on same-sex marriage was based on the precedent that heterosexual marriage has set in this nation - it's granted benefits, given special place on the tax code as compared to single individuals, and is treated differently when it comes to immigration status, welfare, and social security. If citizens in heterosexual marriage gets these benefits, then by the 14th Amendment they must be extended to citizens who are in a same-sex marriage.

The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes the equality of humans, as opposed to their endeavors.

[Highfort]

Marriage is much, much more than a legal institution.

The way it's handled by the government, it's considered a legal institution.

If churches do not want to marry same-sex couples, that's fine, because churches are not legal institutions. The precedent set by the same-sex marriage case was for the purposes of marriage as seen by the government: a legal institution offering benefits to individuals who participate in marriage. It had nothing to do with whether religious marriages had to recognize same-sex couples - both heterosexual and homosexual couples are treated the same for the purpose of civil marriage, which is what the right of marriage protects.

[Ifreann]

Do you believe that those same dead men intended for people of the negro race to be allowed sit at the front of vehicles that didn't exist at the time?

They did not envision that anyone would be riding in motorized buses, or that motorized buses would have even been invented.

So those dead men could not possibly have intended for the 14th Amendment to be used towards such an end. Does that mean black people gotta sit at the back of the bus?

Because what is being discussed is the legal institution of marriage, which absolutely does not exist if not legally recognised.

Marriage is much, much more than a legal institution.

Delightful sentiment, but irrelevant. Equal access to the legal institution of marriage is what the marriage equality movement is after. Why did you think they keep petitioning governments to change their laws?

[Highfort]

The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes the equality of humans, as opposed to their endeavors.

If you wish to get pedantic, then the 14th Amendment does not protect equal pay for different races nor does it protect equal admission to institutions of higher education nor does it protect equal employment opportunities for different races, genders, or creeds.

However, the spirit of the 14th Amendment recognizes the equality of humans as agents whose rights to do certain things (work, get paid, get a higher education, participate in public life, and etc) are not abridged by their race, religion, or creed.

[Dazchan]

I find it strange that you would think that your compatriots intended for some people to be excluded when they said that all citizens of the United States have equal rights.

I wonder why you believe that a group of men 150 years ago intended for people of the same sex to marry, and that for some reason, no one bothered to object to any alleged abridgment of their right to marry someone of the same sex at the time.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you read the amendment, it is clear what the intentions of "a group of men 150 years ago" were. They intended to ensure that all people, regardless of minority status, born in the USA were American citizens, and that no citizen, regardless of minority status, can have the rights/privileges enjoyed by other citizens legislated away.

If you have a law that states that marriage is a privilege to be enjoyed only by one group of citizens, and excludes another group, then it violates the 14th Amendment. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?

[Stellonia]

They did not envision that anyone would be riding in motorized buses, or that motorized buses would have even been invented.

So those dead men could not possibly have intended for the 14th Amendment to be used towards such an end. Does that mean black people gotta sit at the back of the bus?

No. They envisioned that the Fourteenth Amendment would be used to ensure equal protection in the law in present and future instances.

Marriage is much, much more than a legal institution.

Delightful sentiment, but irrelevant. Equal access to the legal institution of marriage is what the marriage equality movement is after. Why did you think they keep petitioning governments to change their laws?

This statement is certainly relevant. If it is correct, than the lack of equal marriage does not, in itself, constitute a lack of equal protection under the law.

[Highfort]

This statement is certainly relevant. If it is correct, than the lack of equal marriage does not, in itself, constitute a lack of equal protection under the law.

Unless of course the law treats married people differently from unmarried people. If it does, then marriage must be accessible as an opportunity for individuals born or naturalized in the United States. If it is inaccessible to a group - like homosexuals - then obviously the law must either make it accessible or they must abolish differential treatment for married couples as opposed to single individuals. The law has chosen the former.

[Stellonia]

I wonder why you believe that a group of men 150 years ago intended for people of the same sex to marry, and that for some reason, no one bothered to object to any alleged abridgment of their right to marry someone of the same sex at the time.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you read the amendment, it is clear what the intentions of "a group of men 150 years ago" were. They intended to ensure that all people, regardless of minority status, born in the USA were American citizens, and that no citizen, regardless of minority status, can have the rights/privileges enjoyed by other citizens legislated away.

If you have a law that states that marriage is a privilege to be enjoyed only by one group of citizens, and excludes another group, then it violates the 14th Amendment. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

[Highfort]

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

How are they fundamentally different in the eyes of the law?

[Dazchan]

If you read the amendment, it is clear what the intentions of "a group of men 150 years ago" were. They intended to ensure that all people, regardless of minority status, born in the USA were American citizens, and that no citizen, regardless of minority status, can have the rights/privileges enjoyed by other citizens legislated away.

If you have a law that states that marriage is a privilege to be enjoyed only by one group of citizens, and excludes another group, then it violates the 14th Amendment. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.