Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:48 pm

Since we have one member that is just spamming the forum and another who keeps arguing with him, I've created a new thread here to continue the discussion about Kim Davis. Rian, if you see this, just ignore the old thread and post any comments here. The old thread had been taken over by idiots.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:06 pm

Sounds good! I'm glad you moved it here, because there are some aspects of the topic I'd like to discuss.

I'll repost this post of mine from the other thread to start things off:

spongebob wrote:Well, you haven't. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. When you address them, I'll check it out. I never said you wouldn't; just that you haven't. Nothing untrue about that.

Sorry for my mistake! Please accept my apologies and a virtual ice cream cone:
Image
It's definitely one of my trigger points, and I'm over-sensitive to it, so I read you wrong. I've seen that tactic used so many times by people over the years, and because truth and integrity are so important to me, it just boils my blood to see it, and I usually will fight against it when I see it used on anyone. Sorry for the wrong assumption! If I could make a suggestion - because internet communication is so difficult, and because that tactic is so prevalent, I think it would help if you said "because you haven't answered that YET" instead of just "because you haven't answered that". The latter sounds so ... final to me, while the former is giving the person the benefit of the doubt, which is especially useful with written posts coming from all different people and it's so easy to miss things, and so impossible to hit every point!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:47 am

Awe, you brought my friend Patrick. How sweet.

Yes, I had to move the subject. Nitwits had overtaken the original thread and were blabbering about anything but the topic. I think it was purposeful. At least in this section we can control that kind of nonsense. So the children can stay over there and play all they want.

So, like I said on the original thread, I did some searching for examples of pro-SSM civil disobedience and I can't find any. Mostly what comes up are links to protests against the new law. The number is kind of amazing. And I pointed out the difference in what civil disobedience is usually representing and what Davis has done and I think there's a lot of space between them.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:14 pm

spongebob wrote:Awe, you brought my friend Patrick. How sweet.
I thought you might like that :smt054

So, like I said on the original thread, I did some searching for examples of pro-SSM civil disobedience and I can't find any. Mostly what comes up are links to protests against the new law. The number is kind of amazing.

Maybe I was using "civil disobedience" rather loosely. I'm talking about things like protests as well as breaking the law. Aren't protests considered civil disobedience? Anyway, an example I was thinking about was when clerks altered marriage license applications from "husband" and "wife" to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2" or something along those lines so that gay couples could get a marriage license and marry, and altering government forms is illegal. They were breaking the law.

And I pointed out the difference in what civil disobedience is usually representing and what Davis has done and I think there's a lot of space between them.

Well, here's where we feel differently, I guess. I think a person needs to do what they think is right, even if I disagree with them or their cause. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change their minds, and if they break laws I think it's OK to lock them up, but I admire people for standing up for what they believe in no matter what their cause is. I was wondering if others felt the same way, or if they only supported civil disobedience for causes that they think are right.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Jesus Raves » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:44 pm

From the Wikipedia article on the topic:
Wikipedia wrote:Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance.

Protests are civil disobedience only when they involve law breaking, and, of course, not all protests break the law.
Last edited by Jesus Raves on Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:46 pm

True. Thank you for the definition!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:15 pm

Rian wrote:Maybe I was using "civil disobedience" rather loosely. I'm talking about things like protests as well as breaking the law. Aren't protests considered civil disobedience? Anyway, an example I was thinking about was when clerks altered marriage license applications from "husband" and "wife" to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2" or something along those lines so that gay couples could get a marriage license and marry, and altering government forms is illegal. They were breaking the law.


Well, I personally I don't consider protests to be civil disobedience, for one reason they are not illegal (we have a Constitutional right to assembly) as long as they are done within the legal limits. I would reserve that to be acts that really do break laws, typically laws that are considered unconstitutional, thus the intention of civil disobedience is to intentionally break a bad law with a lot of people to get wider attention to the unfairness of the law. This is usually done with a firm confidence that the Constitution is on the side of those who oppose the law and it just needs the appropriate kind of pressure and exposure to bring about change, such as laws that suppressed the black vote.

As far as protests go, I'm not opposed to anyone's right to protest anything as long as they do it the appropriate way. I despise anti-abortion protesters but I support their right to protest. Now, what you are saying about clerks altering marriage license forms is new information to me. Obviously that isn't legal and it wouldn't be recognized anyway. I suppose you could call that civil disobedience but it's kind of an ineffective version. It certainly does not equate to Davis's behavior, again because what is happening here? Someone is altering a form to bring attention to a right they believe they believe the Constitution protects. At the most it's going to bring about attention to the issue and possibly changes to the law. My beef with Davis is that there is a law that entitles same sex couples the right to marry and she was denying them that right, and it is a Constitutional right because the Supreme Court has ruled on it. This is the key difference that I consider in the case. The former (say black's right to vote) is Constitutionally protected and thus not an issue of morality but of constitutionality. Davis was arguing on the grounds that her religion forbids same sex marriage, not the Constitution. As I argued with Aaron, our country is based on the rights and privileges as stated in the Constitution, not the Bible. So this is definitely NOT an issue where morality is an acceptable justification for her actions. I fully understand that people's morality might not always square with the Constitution, but in those cases they simply cannot over ride the Constitution. My advice for them is to do like the Orthodox Jews do, live under whatever restrictions your religion requires within your community, but don't try to force people outside your community to adhere to those rules. And if Christians continue on this course, this is exactly where they will be going.

Well, here's where we feel differently, I guess. I think a person needs to do what they think is right, even if I disagree with them or their cause. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change their minds, and if they break laws I think it's OK to lock them up, but I admire people for standing up for what they believe in no matter what their cause is. I was wondering if others felt the same way, or if they only supported civil disobedience for causes that they think are right.


OK, this is exactly the same conversation I had with Aaron and I'll ask you the same question. If you really feel this way about it (and I'm asking not just for a religious position that you tend to agree with, but just people refuting the law in general because they believe it is immoral), then how would you feel if Davis denied a black/white couple a marriage license for the same religious reasons? If there's a difference, please explain it to me because I see no Constitutional difference at all. Both issues were Supreme Court rulings; neither are specifically called out in the Constitution. If she is entitled to pick and choose what laws she wants to uphold, then that opens the floodgates to anyone in any position of government to do the same thing, doesn't it? Including judges, police, mayors, even the President. And that means chaos, anarchy, doesn't it? Do you see my reasoning here? How am I wrong about this?

My position on liberty is very progressive and I know you are more conservative, but if we look strictly at the Constitution, I believe that the consistent interpretation of it suggests that people should be allowed to live as they want to live with as little restriction on their private lives as possible. Conservatives tend to have a much narrower view of this and typically want people (the country) to respect traditions that are long lived (such as man/woman marriage). Where I come out on this is that it is entirely possible for everyone to have their cake. Conservatives can (and should) follow their conservative traditions of marriage. But why should they stop other people from enjoying life as well? I just don't comprehend how it hurts a conservative for two guys to get married. You don't have to participate or approve or sanction it or anything. It seems that just the knowledge of this is intolerable to conservatives and I just do not get that at all. If you want to know the truth, I abhor some of the traditions that conservative religious people value, such as a woman being subservient to their husband. I find that offensive and disgusting, but it's not my life, so why should I try to stop it? I can't stand the way Muslims force their women to wear bedsheets over their entire bodies and don't allow them to do all sorts of activities, but again, it's not my life. So I just can't come to grips with this insane obsession that conservatives have to control the lives of everyone else in the world.

Well, that's enough ranting but that is always what is on my mind when cases like this come up. Christians overwhelmingly want to control everyone else; that is simply the truth and it is incontrovertible.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:36 am

I wanted to update this with a news article I recently found. There is a county in West Tennessee where the clerks all resigned rather than issue same sex marriage licenses. Now this is something that I can support and it would actually a be more effective form of protest. Without the employees, the licenses can't be issued and they aren't breaking any law by resigning. Of course new ones can always be appointed or elected and that's what happened here, but at least it is an acceptable form of protest.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... in_protest

But of course my underlying philosophy doesn't change; I still don't get why it is so important for Christians to tell everyone else how to live.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:56 am

And of course I was right about this just being the beginning of the new marriage culture war. I hate it when I'm right. This will likely go on for years, maybe decades. Why oh why can't Christians just let some of these things go and focus on themselves for a change? Why are they so insanely obsesses with controlling people?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-san ... lp00000592
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:19 pm

Come on, Spongebob. You're too intelligent to make such apocalyptic, unsubstantiated claims. This doesn't indicate a years-long marriage war anymore than the revenge sting of a crushed wasp indicates the wasp will resurrect and sting you some more.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:39 pm

Jesus Raves wrote:Come on, Spongebob. You're too intelligent to make such apocalyptic, unsubstantiated claims. This doesn't indicate a years-long marriage war anymore than the revenge sting of a crushed wasp indicates the wasp will resurrect and sting you some more.


I would argue that you aren't taking into consideration the actions the right has undertaken to defeat abortion in this country. For all practical purposes, in many states abortion has been legislated out of existence. It has taken them 40 years but they have made significant strides toward abortion being totally illegal. These early indicators suggest that they may be just as determined about same sex marriage. Of course we will only know over time how successful they will be but there still appears to be pockets of determined resistance to same sex marriage acceptance. So what makes you think they will just give up on this issue?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:01 pm

Oh no, don't mistake my hesitation to agree as an embrace of the contrary view. I think it's entirely possible this could be the beginning of a marriage war in American culture, but it's far too early to tell for sure.

Same-sex marriage is an entirely different topic from abortion, though. Even most progressives are squeemish about abortion, but virtually all progressives and many others joyfully embrace same-sex marriage. I'm not convinced that conservatives will be allowed to fuck with same-sex marriage the same way they've fucked with abortion, especially considering that the vast majority of younger Americans (the future holders of power)--including many who are conservative--accept same-sex marriage.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:04 pm

The problem here is that under the banner of "abortion" these religious rightist have dismantled women's health care as well. They do not care what good things they destroy as long as they believe they are doing the bidding of their gods.

I'm with spongebob on this. We'll be dealing with this for years, unless the millennials stay on their present path of secularism. That element is a possible safety valve. But frankly, I don't trust that they will be. For instance, today's Tea Partyers and religious right extremists were hippies 40 some years ago. All peace, love, sex, and weed. They grew older and now are bigger bigots and extremists than their parents ever dreamed of being.

Here's something we can look forward to: Right now, Kim Davis is removing ALL notification from licenses. Those licenses do not carry her name, the do not carry the office "name", and they don't carry and deputy names. If any of these couples get divorced, the initial validity of these licenses would be in question from a legal stand point. That could ruin people's lives.

This woman deserves to go to jail because she is interfering with the law.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10431
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:26 pm

Jesus Raves wrote:Oh no, don't mistake my hesitation to agree as an embrace of the contrary view. I think it's entirely possible this could be the beginning of a marriage war in American culture, but it's far too early to tell for sure.

Same-sex marriage is an entirely different topic from abortion, though. Even most progressives are squeemish about abortion, but virtually all progressives and many others joyfully embrace same-sex marriage. I'm not convinced that conservatives will be allowed to fuck with same-sex marriage the same way they've fucked with abortion, especially considering that the vast majority of younger Americans (the future holders of power)--including many who are conservative--accept same-sex marriage.


I sincerely hope you are right and I'm dead wrong about this, I really do, but the early indicators suggest otherwise. I might not have mentioned that I recently attended my old Baptist church back in my hometown while I was visiting and I can barely recognize it now. It's far more right wing than it was 30 years ago. A good portion of the service was dedicated to the "fight" against recognizing same sex marriage and holding on to their moral high ground no matter how society persecutes them. IOW, they are hunkering down for a long fight. The young people in this church are die-hard anti-gay. That's just one Baptist church, but there are millions of Southern Baptists in this country and there appears to be little acceptance going on within that group and others like it.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:05 pm

I'm sure the fundies will keep on complaining til they're all dead and gone, but I'm no so sure they'll continue to hold the power they have currently. Appears to me that that power's waning, and given a decade or two or three, we'll see the anti-gay fundies marginalized like racists are today. Even if they themselves aren't marginalized, their anti-gay views will become so unpopular that they'll have to grudgingly accept gay people just as they had to grudgingly accept black people.

KtR, do you have any evidence that the very people who are now Tea Partiers were once hippies? That claim smells specious to me, if not outright blaringly incorrect.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Next

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest