goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on February 12, 2016, 05:22:15 PM
-
God bless Kentucky. They are proposing two classes of marriage licenses. One for homosexual couples and one for heterosexual couples. The one for gays will say 1st party and second party. The other will be husband and wife. Both valid license that shows both unions as equal.
-
LOL
-
Register your gays!
-
Jfc did he really just support another separate but equal class system with that post?
-
This worked well with giving the negros their own drinking fountains. What's the worst that could happen?
-
I think a better approach would be for both licenses to say husband and wife.
-
Kentucky: super butt hurt
-
Kentucky: super butt hurt
off the charts
-
sounds fine. good job, kentucky.
-
Jfc did he really just support another separate but equal class system with that post?
It's a sock who overreached a bit while trolling, outrage isn't merited
-
Are there any gays kentuckians getting married, or is this just out of state gays starting trouble?
-
Are there any gays kentuckians getting married, or is this just out of state gays starting trouble?
Why in the eff would anyone, gay or straight, go to Kentucky to get married to "start trouble?"
-
Are there any gays kentuckians getting married, or is this just out of state gays starting trouble?
Why in the eff would anyone, gay or straight, go to Kentucky
-
You know those gays, always traveling to other states to get married to agitate
-
I think a better approach would be for both licenses to say husband and wife.
Which is which?
-
Lemy, that is up to you and your partner.
-
The bill has been passed out of the Kentucky senate, and headed to their conservative House. Is Kansas watching?
-
The bill has been passed out of the Kentucky senate, and headed to their conservative House. Is Kansas watching?
Renocat, I hope my gay married uncles don't have to go get a seperate license since they live in KS and love eachother. I hope they're not watching.
-
The bill has been passed out of the Kentucky senate, and headed to their conservative House. Is Kansas snatching?
Renocat, I hope my gay married uncles don't have to go get a seperate license since they live in KS and love eachother. I hope they're not watching.
I think this kind of petty too. Things will never change again back to the old days. So long as churches aren't forced to marry people, then I guess whatever. Just give a with a bunch of.options that they can check, a customized licence.
-
Or you could try not caring what two ppl call themselves inside their own marriage?
This is pretty difficult for the religitards(yeah I know, but sometimes it fits).
-
My uncles have been together for 20 years. Both of them worked for Verizon and one of them was layed off recently. He wanted to get on my uncles insurance after that, but they wouldn't allow it since they "weren't married". I figured common law would kick in on an item like that, but it doesn't. They had to have a small wedding at their house, to get him on the insurance. You wanna talk about petty, renocat? My uncle never wanted to get married to his partner, because he feared what god would think. If god is that judgmental, then he can go eff himself. My uncles have a better relationship than any couple I know, but the government wants to restrict them of basic rights? They can get mumped too!
-
My uncles have been together for 20 years. Both of them worked for Verizon and one of them was layed off recently. He wanted to get on my uncles insurance after that, but they wouldn't allow it since they "weren't married". I figured common law would kick in on an item like that, but it doesn't. They had to have a small wedding at their house, to get him on the insurance. You wanna talk about petty, renocat? My uncle never wanted to get married to his partner, because he feared what god would think. If god is that judgmental, then he can go eff himself. My uncles have a better relationship than any couple I know, but the government wants to restrict them of basic rights? They can get mumped too!
So sexing a guy is ok but not marrying him? (According to your uncle's god)
-
Sounds more like he needed an excuse to not get married
-
My uncles have been together for 20 years. Both of them worked for Verizon and one of them was layed off recently. He wanted to get on my uncles insurance after that, but they wouldn't allow it since they "weren't married". I figured common law would kick in on an item like that, but it doesn't. They had to have a small wedding at their house, to get him on the insurance. You wanna talk about petty, renocat? My uncle never wanted to get married to his partner, because he feared what god would think. If god is that judgmental, then he can go eff himself. My uncles have a better relationship than any couple I know, but the government wants to restrict them of basic rights? They can get mumped too!
That is an odd outlook
-
I don't know, man. We all make up our own moralities in our own heads. The Fannings are all over the top conservatives. There's lots of couples who spend a life time together, that don't feel the need of a label as "married".
-
I don't know, man. We all make up our own moralities in our own heads. The Fannings are all over the top conservatives. There's lots of couples who spend a life time together, that don't feel the need of a label as "married".
And those couples think the marriage will anger the lord?
-
No.
-
I don't know, man. We all make up our own moralities in our own heads. The Fannings are all over the top conservatives. There's lots of couples who spend a life time together, that don't feel the need of a label as "married".
And those couples think the marriage will anger the lord?
Yeah, it's not the "Don't want to get married" part that is weird it is the "because God will not like it" part.
-
God doesn't watch the homosex, but he does watch the marriages
-
I would think that God would like it better if you were married to whomever you were having sex with rather than having pre-martial sex.
-
I would think that God would like it better if you were married to whomever you were having sex with rather than having pre-martial sex.
Two wrongs make a right maybe?
-
I would think that God would like it better if you were married to whomever you were having sex with rather than having pre-martial sex.
What if one of them doesn't actually want to get married?
-
I would think that God would like it better if you were married to whomever you were having sex with rather than having pre-martial sex.
What if one of them doesn't actually want to get married?
The lord works in mysterious ways.
-
They've never really cared about legalizing gay marriage for some reason. They're not going anywhere. I don't know why it never appeased to them.
-
The fanning clan needs a reality show
-
They've never really cared about legalizing gay marriage for some reason. They're not going anywhere. I don't know why it never appeased to them.
:D
-
The fanning clan needs a reality show
Would take.
-
Do they think god hates them?
-
it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.
-
Does Susan Jones support it?
-
Do they think god hates them?
I believe my uncle does, I think his partner doesn't really care.
-
Wacky I think I am befuddled. Your uncles and.your family seem to be very cool and supportive of their relationship. I thought the whole crux of expanding the parameters of marriage was because gay couples wanted to have the legal rights as hetromarrieds. In my church God's parameters for marriage is different than the state's. God sees everything. No place to hide. I am sinful and without Christ taking.the.punishment for them, I.would.be.lost.too.
-
Do they think god hates them?
I believe my uncle does, I think his partner doesn't really care.
Then why GAF about getting married?
-
Wacky I think I am befuddled. Your uncles and.your family seem to be very cool and supportive of their relationship. I thought the whole crux of expanding the parameters of marriage was because gay couples wanted to have the legal rights as hetromarrieds. In my church God's parameters for marriage is different than the state's. God sees everything. No place to hide. I am sinful and without Christ taking.the.punishment for them, I.would.be.lost.too.
What's the question?
-
I have always been of the opinion that an overwhelming majority of gay people really don't want marriage to be legal, but there is a noisy small minority pushing for it.
-
I have always been of the opinion that an overwhelming majority of gay people really don't want marriage to be legal, but there is a noisy small minority pushing for it.
Nice try, I'm not falling for a troll like that
-
I have always been of the opinion that an overwhelming majority of gay people really don't want marriage to be legal, but there is a noisy small minority pushing for it.
Of course, everyone knows those amoral faggots only want to eff with no strings attached.
-
it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.
I truly hope you are just misinformed here
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/19/kentucky-senate-approves-bill-creating-separate-marriage-license-forms.html
-
it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.
I truly hope you are just misinformed here
i'm not. it's good that it doesn't make clerks with religious hangups feel like they have to personally endorse a homosexual marriage in order for a homosexual couple to receive a marriage license. it's good that a lesbian couple doesn't have to appoint one of them to be the "husband" or a gay couple appoint one of them to be the "wife" on their form. and it's good that heterosexual (or homosexual) couples that want to use those terms can do so. it's all good.
it's not perfect. i agree that a single form with the option to check the preferred term would be better than having two forms. but it's better than what they have now. better is better than not better.
-
I have always been of the opinion that an overwhelming majority of gay people really don't want marriage to be legal, but there is a noisy small minority pushing for it.
Of course, everyone knows those amoral faggots only want to eff with no strings attached.
They are no different than anyone else. :rolleyes:
-
:Lurk:
it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.
I agree.
-
it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.
I truly hope you are just misinformed here
i'm not. it's good that it doesn't make clerks with religious hangups feel like they have to personally endorse a homosexual marriage in order for a homosexual couple to receive a marriage license. it's good that a lesbian couple doesn't have to appoint one of them to be the "husband" or a gay couple appoint one of them to be the "wife" on their form. and it's good that heterosexual (or homosexual) couples that want to use those terms can do so. it's all good.
it's not perfect. i agree that a single form with the option to check the preferred term would be better than having two forms. but it's better than what they have now. better is better than not better.
What the hell are you talking about, did you not read the article? The current form in Kentucky does not have husband or wife on it, it has first party and second party on the form. No one is forced to pick from a gender specific title. The form right now is perfectly fine and all the Senate needed to do is remove the provision for a required clerks signature, but they didn't do that now we have this sloppy mess.
-
What the hell are you talking about, did you not read the article? The current form in Kentucky does not have husband or wife on it, it has first party and second party on the form. No one is forced to pick from a gender specific title. The form right now is perfectly fine and all the Senate needed to do is remove the provision for a required clerks signature, but they didn't do that now we have this sloppy mess.
what sloppy mess are you talking about? good grief. and yes, i am aware that by executive order the gov mandated that the current form lists first party and second party. interacting with you can be very tedious, mir.
-
What the hell are you talking about, did you not read the article? The current form in Kentucky does not have husband or wife on it, it has first party and second party on the form. No one is forced to pick from a gender specific title. The form right now is perfectly fine and all the Senate needed to do is remove the provision for a required clerks signature, but they didn't do that now we have this sloppy mess.
what sloppy mess are you talking about? good grief. and yes, i am aware that by executive order the gov mandated that the current form lists first party and second party. interacting with you can be very tedious, mir.
You made it seem as if the two forms is a good compromise so same sex couples don't have to choose gender specific titles or so bigoted religious zealous don't have to have their signature stamped on a piece of paper. However, the two form proposal was not intended to be a compromise for these purposes, it's actually the opposite, so you stating that it is confuses me.
They should charge the gheys more money too so they can put their licenses on pink glitter paper, that should make them happy too.
-
lord have mercy, it's an old fashioned mir-sys
:excited:
-
the administrative action that created the first party/second party terminology was that compromise. this bill would confirm that as law and not a malleable detail of how the state conducts it's business.
it also gives couples the option to use a form with the original terminology. it's good for people to have options.
-
the administrative action that created the first party/second party terminology was that compromise. this bill would confirm that as law and not a malleable detail of how the state conducts it's business.
it also gives couples the option to use a form with the original terminology. it's good for people to have options.
But that isn't the the purpose of the proposal. If it were about options they would have went with one form with the option to check husband, wife, or spouse. This is a concerted effort to create a gay form and a straight form and it's unbelievably maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this. I can't parse this from a 21st century gay Plessy vs Ferguson
-
But that isn't the the purpose of the proposal. If it were about options they would have went with one form with the option to check husband, wife, or spouse. This is a concerted effort to create a gay form and a straight form and it's unbelievably maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this. I can't parse this from a 21st century gay Plessy vs Ferguson
one form would have been better. personally i don't find the terms first party and second party very appropriate either. spouse or prospective spouse or something like that seems better to me. but i have no idea how most people feel about those terms.
i do not care what the motivation behind the bill was. the effect is to give couple (all couples) a choice of forms. that is good.
-
But that isn't the the purpose of the proposal. If it were about options they would have went with one form with the option to check husband, wife, or spouse. This is a concerted effort to create a gay form and a straight form and it's unbelievably maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this. I can't parse this from a 21st century gay Plessy vs Ferguson
one form would have been better. personally i don't find the terms first party and second party very appropriate either. spouse or prospective spouse or something like that seems better to me. but i have no idea how most people feel about those terms.
i do not care what the motivation behind the bill was. the effect is to give couple (all couples) a choice of forms. that is good.
The effect is to create a gay form. I actually just texted a good friend of mine and she said that she and her wife would choose to both marked bride on the Iowa form. They had the choice to mark bride, groom, or spouse but marking anything was optional. I also asked her if she thought that separate forms were a good compromise and she asked me if having to eat in an outhouse was a good compromise for my grandparents.
-
But that isn't the the purpose of the proposal. If it were about options they would have went with one form with the option to check husband, wife, or spouse. This is a concerted effort to create a gay form and a straight form and it's unbelievably maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this. I can't parse this from a 21st century gay Plessy vs Ferguson
one form would have been better. personally i don't find the terms first party and second party very appropriate either. spouse or prospective spouse or something like that seems better to me. but i have no idea how most people feel about those terms.
i do not care what the motivation behind the bill was. the effect is to give couple (all couples) a choice of forms. that is good.
The effect is to create a gay form. I actually just texted a good friend of mine and she said that she and her wife would choose to both marked bride on the Iowa form. They had the choice to mark bride, groom, or spouse but marking anything was optional. I also asked her if she thought that separate forms were a good compromise and she asked me if having to eat in an outhouse was a good compromise for my grandparents.
the form that you claimed to like when the gov. created it is still available. you are complaining that some people are being allowed to choose a different form that they like better. like your complaint is that some people might be infinitesimally happier than they would have been if this bill isn't passed.
-
But that isn't the the purpose of the proposal. If it were about options they would have went with one form with the option to check husband, wife, or spouse. This is a concerted effort to create a gay form and a straight form and it's unbelievably maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this. I can't parse this from a 21st century gay Plessy vs Ferguson
one form would have been better. personally i don't find the terms first party and second party very appropriate either. spouse or prospective spouse or something like that seems better to me. but i have no idea how most people feel about those terms.
i do not care what the motivation behind the bill was. the effect is to give couple (all couples) a choice of forms. that is good.
The effect is to create a gay form. I actually just texted a good friend of mine and she said that she and her wife would choose to both marked bride on the Iowa form. They had the choice to mark bride, groom, or spouse but marking anything was optional. I also asked her if she thought that separate forms were a good compromise and she asked me if having to eat in an outhouse was a good compromise for my grandparents.
the form that you claimed to like when the gov. created it is still available. you are complaining that some people are being allowed to choose a different form that they like better. like your complaint is that some people might be infinitesimally happier than they would have been if this bill isn't passed.
That other form that people like better is being proposed based on a narrowly held religious belief. If we're going to do that why stop there? I want me and my wife to be classified as king and queen just because I like that better so Kentucky should oblige that too. If they are going to have more than one form they need to be less obvious about creating a form for people who don't care to have any loose association with anyone gay.
-
Maybe next they can create a form that allows you to list your race on your marriage license and another form with just a box to check Caucasian to accommodate anyone who thinks interracial marriage is bullshit.
-
let me remove the labels so we can make the ethical considerations more clear.
lets say a wants x and b wants y. when only x is available, a is happy and b is unhappy. when only y is available, a is unhappy and b is happy. lets further posit a world where both a and b can choose either x or y. in this world, it follows that both a and b are happy.
now lets add a twist. lets say that while a is happy with x and b is happy with y, b is happier with y than a is with x. in this world, when both a and b can choose either x or y, a is happy and b is even happier.
i hope it is self evident that in the first world, if either a or b prefer that only x or only y should be available to both a and b. that they are behaving unethically. perhaps it is less evident that in the second world it would be equally unethical for a to prefer that only x is available to both a and b. but it really shouldn't be.
-
"Sorry Sirs, we are all out of the optional spouse form. They are currently on back order and I have no idea when they are due in"(lols but disguises it poorly as a cough).
- Kim Davis
-
Texas Supreme Court put a twist to different standards for gay married. They ruled cities don't have to offer spousal benefits to married gays, but can go ahead and offer them to opposite sex.married. Samers have the right to marry, but not to benefits. Good night and good dreams.
-
That sounds like a slam dunk to be overturned.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
Texas Supreme Court put a twist to different standards for gay married. They ruled cities don't have to offer spousal benefits to married gays, but can go ahead and offer them to opposite sex.married. Samers have the right to marry, but not to benefits. Good night and good dreams.
That is ridiculous. Did they give any sort of justification for the distinction?
It may be ridiculous, and I agree that I think it is. But the bigger picture is that it makes renocat so happy. At least I believe that is the purpose for the post.
-
Nothing like some good old fashioned discrimination. Really makes a bigot feel good. Ya know?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
So it seems.
-
When I first read this I thought something was screwy, but hey it was from Breitbart. Turd in the punch bowl. One dumb Texas Supreme bastard judge was saying this - the whole tribunal. Its time for grouchy farts like me to live in the new world. I am getting there. Don't like it, but coping and adapting.