Author Topic: Kentucky's separate but equal marriage licenses (Read 4382 times)

gatoveintisiete · « **Reply #50 on:** February 20, 2016, 01:34:54 AM »

Quote from: sys on February 19, 2016, 11:07:40 AM

it's a good bill. don't base your opinion about it on reno's thread title.

I agree.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #51 on:** February 20, 2016, 02:43:40 AM »

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 12:27:47 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 19, 2016, 10:49:59 PM
Quote from: sys on February 19, 2016, 11:07:40 AM
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.

sys · « **Reply #52 on:** February 20, 2016, 03:06:45 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 02:43:40 AM

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #53 on:** February 20, 2016, 09:24:49 AM »

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 03:06:45 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 02:43:40 AM
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.

mocat · « **Reply #54 on:** February 20, 2016, 09:45:59 AM »

lord have mercy, it's an old fashioned mir-sys

sys · « **Reply #55 on:** February 20, 2016, 12:52:54 PM »

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #56 on:** February 20, 2016, 01:04:47 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 12:52:54 PM

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

sys · « **Reply #57 on:** February 20, 2016, 01:27:02 PM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:04:47 PM

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #58 on:** February 20, 2016, 01:49:20 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 01:27:02 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:04:47 PM
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.

sys · « **Reply #59 on:** February 20, 2016, 01:55:34 PM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:49:20 PM

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:04:47 PM
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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #60 on:** February 20, 2016, 02:47:44 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 01:55:34 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:49:20 PM
Quote from: sys on February 20, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:04:47 PM
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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #61 on:** February 20, 2016, 02:50:19 PM »

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.

sys · « **Reply #62 on:** February 20, 2016, 03:12:48 PM »

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.

CNS · « **Reply #63 on:** February 21, 2016, 04:18:52 PM »

"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

renocat · « **Reply #64 on:** September 04, 2016, 10:15:49 PM »

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.

CNS · « **Reply #65 on:** September 05, 2016, 07:23:55 PM »

That sounds like a slam dunk to be overturned.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Canary · « **Reply #66 on:** September 05, 2016, 08:21:53 PM »

Quote from: memphis on September 05, 2016, 07:28:10 PM

Quote from: renocat on September 04, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
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.

CNS · « **Reply #67 on:** September 05, 2016, 08:24:12 PM »

Nothing like some good old fashioned discrimination. Really makes a bigot feel good. Ya know?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Canary · « **Reply #68 on:** September 05, 2016, 08:28:55 PM »

So it seems.

renocat · « **Reply #69 on:** September 06, 2016, 12:39:08 AM »

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.