Bingo -- the root cause of all this hoopla. It is the tax-favored status of marriage that is the primary motivation behind all efforts to redefine marriage more broadly. So, get rid of the tax-favored status, and all of this insanity goes away!

You're right. Who am I to discriminate against people who love experiencing indescribable pain, and would enjoy that marriage tax "benefit."

No, it's not. But jailing a person because they refuse to follow a law that is in conflict with their morality is setting a path in that direction. Following the law was specifically the excuse that the Nazis used, so the comparison is not mine.

Agreed...since all this fuss; like a father to his children...I would say: No more licenses, cakes, videos or pictures...now go to bed and shut up! hahahahahahahahha....it's so sad, it's funny.

On a related note, I honestly don't understand why so many men and women still want to get married. Marriage in modern America is completely broken. Over half of all marriages end in divorce. Most of the rest are miserable failures of long-term torment and suffering.

By my estimation, 95% of marriages are long-term failures. Only about 5% are any good. Marriage is the riskiest choice a person can make in life; nowadays, it usually turns out very badly...

Once again we have militant activists 'down voting' rejection of their dogma on an Ayn Rand forum, this time in the form of a preposterous claim that a judge requiring a public official to do her job despite her religious demands to change her job has "invalidated the entire Nuremberg trials". As a consequence of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason she rejected all forms of supernaturalism and anti-reason, including religious faith. This is not a place to promote religion in government in the name of the "Nuremberg trials" or any other way.

How can we exclude cacti? Many people enjoy a good piercing...

I do believe in equal rights. And I think that the government has no place in anyone's bedroom. The progressives, however, want to make sure that the government is everywhere, including the bedroom, the church and the soup line. There must not be any dissenters. The issue is not marriage, civil union or rights. The issue is conformance to the State and the Party.

Maybe we should invent a law that includes all plants, excluding cactuses. :0

Civil marriage for gays does not "supersede an enumerated right". It has nothing to do with her "freedom of religion". She has no right to impose her religion on others. She is a public official who may not personally redefine the law and her official duties to be whatever she wants them to be in accordance with her religion. Defiance of objective application of law by government officials is tyranny on principle, in this case theocratic tyranny by the head of a department responsible for its actions.

If she is incapable of doing her job because of irrational fears of "supernatural punishment" and the rest of what such a mentality leads to, then she should be removed, by the court if necessary, for mental incompetence. It's not an excuse for rule by loon. There is no "reasonable accommodation" for psychosis and no "religious right" to the irrational.

The 10th amendment does not negate the requirement for states to honor civil rights in accordance with the 14th amendment. The motive for the 14th amendment arose from racial injustice against former slaves; the amendment itself was stated, properly, as a general principle and applies for everyone. Otherwise it would have itself been racist.

We can object to the recent Supreme Court decision pandering to an invalid concept of 'marriage' merged with the concept of 'civil unions', but requiring states to honor civil rights in marriage laws, whatever else they may be, is not the Court taking over state marriage laws. We can also object to politically motivated inconsistencies in enforcing laws, but none of this justifies using religion to define what the laws should be on behalf of "people of faith" attempting to dictate what they can do as public officials. That is a false alternative.

I did not include minors above. My humorous post is intended to highlight that Pandora's Box has been opened. If you want to use the logic used by those advocating expanded definitions of marriage, there is almost no limit. Otherwise, by their logic, you are discriminating against "love." Again, I'm not encouraging any of the things in the list, my first sentence is primary...

I have no intention of lobbying the state of Kentucky over their laws. My humorous post simply highlights that there are other, more creative ways to peacefully protest judges that are over-stepping their jurisdictions. I think humor has a way of helping minimize unnecessary anger in these situations... It also might get some of them to think about the ramifications of the new logic they are using... Hope springs eternal...

Indeed. I should have included trees and other shrubbery in the list above. Who am I to discriminate against such "loving" relationships? If I do, I am imposing my definition of civilized behavior on them! Say it ain't so!

Without marrying trees (yes, I saw the pics!), there are still a ton of civil marriages per year. In the US, I have found estimates of 10% - 40%. In the UK, I found an analysis: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/m...

So the use of the term 'marriage' to apply to a civil union is well established. I don't think I am using it out of context.

Jan

First - I am not religious in any way whatsoever. That said, religious beliefs are just as valid for some people as the Spaghetti Monster, Global Warming or for that matter, Objectivism. Everyone has a right to their moral code, as long as that code does not impose on others nor do they impose on others. When a law is introduced into a society that clearly conflicts with the moral code of a are portion of the citizens, the society is having a moral conflict, just as it has a constitutional conflict. If it cannot be amiably resolved, the seeds of the revolution are being laid.

The word "marriage" has historically been associated with a religious union. If the progressives want to marry trees, or have sex with them (I'm not imagining; you may have seen pictures of that in Berkley recently), by all means, as far as I'm concerned. Just don't hijack the word "marriage." They can call it anything they want, "sixty nine," for example. The tax, health or any other benefits and responsibilities can very well be part of the sixty nine. But that is not enough for the progressives, because that would leave some people that are not part of their system, e.g., "counter-revolutionaries." And we all know what must be done with the counter-revolutionaries.

I totally disagree with her, but I am 'on her side' insofar as not obeying orders if you think they are wrong. I do not think that she should try to weasel out of the repercussions of a stance you take, though. If you are going to make a statement, have the balls to see it through.

Let me tell you a story. It was in about 1989. I was working night shift in the lab of a hospital. I was called to the ER to draw a legal blood alcohol level on a person brought in by the police. I refused. I told the police and the doctors that I believe that this constitutes making a person 'testify against themselves' - even though it has been ruled in court that it does not.

I was told by the lab chief and admin, the next day, that I was required to do this as a part of my job. I stated that I would not do so. I told the people from whom I was renting a room that about what was going on - they evicted me from my room on the grounds that 'I might loose my job and be unable to pay my rent'.

My colleague, Curry, on evening shift, entered a strong statement that said that he objected to drawing legal blood alcohols too (for diff reasons). Ultimately, faced with objections from key people working two different shifts that no one likes to cover, the hospital backed down.

I found another, and much better, place to live. I worked for that hospital for another 3 or so years (until this programmer fellow lured me into starting a company with him...Hi, Wm).

Jan

The Bible Belt is culturally and intellectually, and sometimes politically, obnoxious, but the whole state of Kentucky isn't backwards.

Civil marriage for gays is not "Nazi atrocities".

There is no "inalienable right" for a public official to not do his job, and Christianity is not the basis of the rights of the individual. Religion was the philosophy of the Dark Ages. The Enlightenment overturned that. "Natural rights" means our rights as identified in principle in accordance with our nature as human beings, and how we became what we are is a question for science. Neither is based on religious faith in dogma.

You did not include trees! But - joking aside - I literally agree with your list, and more. The gov has no business being involved with marriages. They should all be civil contracts; you should tell the gov what you have done and not have to ask permission to do it; if you want to be religiously married, go to your local druid.

I especially like the smartphone relationship - know a couple of people who are married to theirs!

Jan

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

One of her problems is our government by whim. She'll need to start her own enterprise since there is no guarantee that there won't be a change that infringes on her belief somewhere down the line. Even then, there's no guarantee -- example the baker who won't bake for a gay wedding. The current reason she must resign is, of course, that she had the power to put her beliefs ahead of others.

She has no "civil right" to not do her job.

Agreed. But she is a wuz. She wants to take a moral stance and dodge the bullet at the same time. She should resign, or ask for a transfer to a different department.

Jan