Comments

1
Redneck, homophobic cops in Kentucky? My goodness, how long has this been going on!
2
Every single bigot refusing to do their job should quit or be fired.
3
You don't get to do the civil disobedience when you're the gubmint, sweet Appalachians. do your jerb or quit.
4
I bet Kim Davis won't pay a dime for that lawsuit (the taxpayers will) so I guess she wins either way?
5
I feel for the couple, and just hope that they get a lovely reception paid for by the county in recompense.
6
Can the Governor send in state troopers to forcibly remove and bar the staff from the office? Can they get a court order to bar this staff from the office?
7
It may not be obvious to these people, but taking a "government job" implies that you'll usually be enforcing (and/or constrained by) the laws of the land. Not the laws of Land of the Lost, Landsharks, Land of the Zombies, or Adventureland, but this land. It was made for you and me.
8
This is so fucked up. I remember the stress and nervousness I felt going to the clerk in downtown Seattle when marriage equality passed a couple years ago. I wasn't nervous about my partner; we'd been together for more than 25 years by the time we were able to apply for a marriage license. I was just nervous going up to the clerk and asking for a license to marry another man. And I felt this even in hippy liberal Seattle. Maybe a little PTSD after decades of societal disapproval. The clerk, of course, was perfectly sweet and congratulated us, so I needn't have worried.

I can't imagine these two guys going in to the clerk's office facing this kind of open hostility. What a way to ruin what should be a happy occasion. They should sue the living shit out of this vile person and the county she purports to represent. And the asshole cops too.
12
jesus shit-eating christ, seattleblues: go fuuuuuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.
13
If you cannot perform the duties your job requires because of your awful religious beliefs, it's time to get another job where your bigotry does not interfere with your ability to do what you're paid to do. Your religious convictions are your problem. Don't hide behind them, have the balls to own them and the consequences they bear.

Your savior died on a fucking cross for you, If you can't issue a marriage license or bake a cake then you should be able to quit your job, or else you're missing the entire fucking point of the fairy tale you hold so dear.
14
I know this, or similar arguments have been made ad infinitum, but they're worth repeating: does Kim Davis grant marriage licenses to satanic heterosexual couples? Does Kim Davis grant marriage licenses to atheists? Does Kim Davis grant marriage licenses to stingers, divorces, or cheaters? Would she grant a marriage license to someone on a sex offender registry (whether they're there wrongfully or rightfully)?

This is not, and has never been about religion. JC is just a convenient red herring to distract from their blatant bigotry. Anyway, preaching to the choir out here... So here's hoping she gets hit with a big judgment (and then the inevitable Kickstarter will come in to protect her, and give her a little extra spending cash for her troubles/rabid hatred. Life sucks sometimes).
15
Why aren't they suing the police? Sue the fucking police. You can't even trust cops not to fuck up something simple as this. They can't be trusted with traffic stops, they can't be trusted with jaywalkers, they can't be trusted with a fucking pool party, now they can't even be trusted with fucking county clerks' offices. When will they stop? When we fucking make them stop.
16
@12, Ew, what? Why is he back? Looks like comments are getting deleted pretty efficiently at least, so the adults can have a normal conversation without having to constantly remind the children how to behave themselves.
17
@16 I'm probably glad not to see them now -- but I'm often morbidly curious about the deleted posts, especially when there are replies to them. :)
18
@10:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND - oh. I guess TPTB finally figured it out...
19
@16

Not lying constantly would be one way adults behave.

Sorry Savage, you didn't make the cut. I mean, you posted the video about which you lied for goodness sake.

These men didn't have "abuse heaped" on them. They were ignored. While that was childish, it wasn't abuse.

A police officer came and did his job well, which is to keep the peace. He didn't take sides. He didn't arrest anyone. He didn't even talk to anyone so far as the video shows. He monitored a potential problem. He has no authority to force the clerks to issue a license, or didn't you know that Savage?

The men behaved well, which is why the officer didn't have any problems with them. Understandably frustrated, they stayed civil and controlled. Clearly they and Ms. Smith had already discussed her refusal to give them a marriage license in a prior visit. They implied as much before even entering the building. So they were prepared with proof of their new right to be "married."

The clerk, Smith, needs to decide if she can do her job. Than she needs to do it or resign. If she can't make either choice her employers need to fire her.

That's the horrible thing I wrote. And I called Savage intolerant and a bigot. Which he is. I disagree with most of what Democrats want to do. But I've never publicly wished them all "fucking dead, " to take only one of many, many examples of Savages bigotry. As it turns out, thin skinned would be another good descriptor for the man.

20
Clean-up on aisle @19! There is a huge, steaming pile of shit and a shrieking child that desperately needs someone's attention.
21
@20

Awww. Didn't get your morning nap and a bit grumpy, are you? That's okay kiddo! Take your nap line a good toddler and you'll feel all better.
22
@19: When has Dan wished people dead? Other than such idioms as "They can all go to hell!"
23
@19: How does it feel to have completely fucking lost this one? How does it feel to be completely irrelevant and impotent?
24
@19 - You are veery close to sounding reasonable, SB. I know you do that sometimes, but it always turns out to be a red herring to throw us off the trail. I'm not taking the bait. (yeah I know I'm mixing metaphors).
25
Dearest Seattleblues, Your use of scare quotes is so childish. As is your throwing around the word bigot to describe those whom you are bigoted against. I do credit you for stating the obvious about clerks doing their jobs or stepping down. Now I must go boil my fingers for typing the previous sentence.

And being ignored in that manner is abuse. As is being threatened with the police officer. Cops are skilled at intimidation and abuse without saying a word. Does Deputy Dawg show up every time someone with lawful business is being "ignored" or just when gay/black/hispanic/other gets clerically abused?
26
@22

On national television a couple of years ago.

@23

Family and marriage "lost this one." I wasn't actually involved with the court case. And I'm decidedly average. I'm not important to anyone but a circle of family, friends and business associates. Nor am I "impotent and irrelevant." Just a normal American watching his world change as is inevitable. Sometimes the changes are good. Sometimes, as with this one, very bad. Just life, I guess.

27
@21, "I know you are but what am I?" is always an on-point retort when someone just called you a whiny baby.
28
@25

I evicted a tenant a few years ago for nonpayment. They ignored me when I drove out to make sure they were gone. And they called the police. I didn't feel abused by being ignored, though like these men probably felt it was irritating and childish. And the officer watching me force these people to leave didn't intimidate me by silently being there. In fact, sinxe I'm law abiding and was acting within my rights a trained, impartial witness was welcome.

Your standards for abuse and intimidation might stand some self examination.
29
@26. And Dan quickly apologized for his remark (see http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…). Good job trying to make that one stick. Go back to being banned douchebag.
31
@25

And kiddo? Those weren't scare quotes. I don' t work for the government. And the union of two men or two women will never, ever, under any circumstances be marriage to me.
32
@29

Oh. So if someone said, on national television, "all fags should fucking die" and than apoligized you'd be fine with that?

Good enough.

Have a nice day.
33
@32 as long as their apology was real and as heartfelt as Dan's was? Yes.
34
@30, A better analogy would be interracial marriage, which was opposed by a majority of Americans when the SCOTUS legalized it. The bigots who opposed it at the time even cited God and the laws of nature as justification, but their resistance collapsed pretty quickly.

We're already at >60% approval. The bigots lost before the ruling even came down.
35
If anyone wants to feel better, just watch this .gif and imagine SB as Loki and whatever you want (marriage equality, progress, yourself) as the Hulk.
37
Hmmm It appears that little Subhumanblues is starting to moderate it's irrational tantrums a bit in response the frequent time-outs it has been receiving lately. If this keeps up perhaps it can reach the maturity level of a 5 year by the end of the year.
38
@26: Hey, whatever you need to sleep at night. When states were passing gay marriage bans you puffed out your chest and talked about real Americans like you who were "winning." When marriage equality measures were being voted down, you talked about how real Americans and morality will always win out.

You bragged about being a bigot, you actively harmed gay people (well, it was all bullshit and lies, but you wanted us to believe it), and you flung hate speech around in a frothing blind rage whenever marriage equality took a step forward.

Now that you finally realized you lost, it is "hey, change is inevitable mane, que sera sera..."

Laughable. Have the "barbarians at the gate" cowed you that much, like a cuffed dog? Shouldn't you keep fighting for Jesus or something?
40
@36, Have you... read his comments?

The arguments against gay marriage never evolved, despite mounting evidence against them and a growing rejection from the public. And let's be real, they weren't all that sophisticated to begin with.
41
Fuck you and your feeble concern trolling, Ken.
42
@30: You're right, unfortunately. Some of these fights one win is enough (see: interracial marriage) and some... not so much. Abortion, slavery, the right to unionize, minimum wage, a financial safety net, financial regulation, progressive taxation, voting rights... there are a lot of situations where we had some major victories, then a long string of defeats, small and large.

It's too early to say which one this is going to turn out to be. My guess is that this victory is going to last, but people thought that about Roe v. Wade, too. But the temptation to stomp on a defeated enemy is strong, and to be honest, the country's suffered pretty badly from not following through on that impulse (see: failure to execute the perpetrators of a certain mass treason, leading to a century of widespread domestic terrorism).
43
@30, Ken, I think it's more like "things don't happen overnight" akin to interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws than Roe v Wade. But we shall see.
44
Seattleblues is going to go to his grave knowing that the world doesn't give a shit about him and his chickenshit backwards-ass beliefs, and there's nothing he can do about it. Just like all the old racists who got to watch Obama get elected before they croaked.
45
There have been a number of stories already of Republicans who were dead-set against marriage equality until it passed in their state, at which point they realized the sky wasn't falling and gave up their opposition. I don't think this one is going away.
47
Just gonna leave this here:

Contact Information
Rowan County Clerk
Kim Davis
kimberlyb.davis@ky.gov
600 West Main Street Room 102
Morehead, KY 40351

Phone – (606) 784-5212
Fax – (606) 784-2923

I went to college in Morehead, this is shameful.
48
@38

My dad said how someone won told more about their character than how they lost.

Thanks to you and the rest of the same sex "marriage" crowd for proving him right.

And as I wrote, I haven't lost. My kids and yours and the kids they'll have- they've lost legal protection for real marriage. Marriage and family no longer mean anything worthwhile under the law. But while I'm so very thankful for your concern, barbarian, my marriage (my real marriage as opposed to same sex unions) is fine.
49
@46, Considering the bigots have yet to procure any more sophisticated arguments in the past 10+ years, I'm not too worried they're going to suddenly figure it out at some point in the future, and climate change is not even in the same realm as civil rights so what are you even carrying on about anymore.

It's over, they lost, etc, now let's both pretend this dumb conversation never happened. Or you can just keep reaching for increasingly shittier analogies since that seems to be working out so well for you right now and someone else can pick up my end of the line. Whatev, I'm out.
50
@48: My marriage feels pretty much the same before and after. So does my family. Pretty sure absolutely nothing has changed for us legally, either. Can you explain how those both no longer mean anything?
51
@48.
Marriage and family no longer mean anything under the law.


Kim Davis has been married four times.
52
@48, [insert gif of Scarlett O'Hara fainting here]
54
Fucking shit bird homophobes. I did't even realize Kentucky was a real place until now. I thought it was just some made up place where racists lived for TV and movie purposes. Kind of like Heisler beer.
55
Hi #13, blip. I just shared a screenshot of your comment via FB. Thank you, for your words! I hate that in the liberal Netherlands - the first country to legalize same sex marriages - it's still legal to not marry gay couples when you work for the local government. How is that possible?? It's just crazy!
57
Brave gay men living in a place like that.
58
@19: You're one to talk about "not lying constantly". Hey, remember how you falsely claimed that hate crime laws are exclusively applied to protect minorities? And how when I refuted that claim by citing official FBI statistics on hate crimes, you accused me of lying with statistics and using phony liberal sources and stuff? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

@28: What about the tenants you illegally refused to lease to due to their sexual orientation? Did they call the cops to complain also?

@48: What does it say about your ideas on marriage and family that they cease to mean anything as soon as gay people get gay married? That's your failing, not the queers'.
59
We aren't all like this. I swear.
60
Is this county actually refusing to process marriage licenses for everyone? If not, tt would have been particularly damning if they had brought some straight shills to precede them, so the clerks could be caught handing out the paperwork to the straight folks, right before denying it to the gays.
61
@58 Venomlash, "Pepperidge Farm remembers"

That was the best laugh I've had all day, and I needed it today. Thank you!
62
@61 LOL yeah that young whipper snapper Venomlash pisses Subhumanblues off to no end.

I think it is one of the reasons the Subhuman one hasn't been completely banned. Too much fun watching Venomlash play with his mouse.
63
@48, you wag your finger at how awful people have behaved towards you... After you insult them and dismiss the idea that they should enjoy equal rights under the law.

If your religion tells you that you can hate people, that's great. But don't for a second try to tell us that it yours is a religion of love, because it isn't. If your god can't forgive and accept humans for the simple act of loving other humans, then you god isn't capable of infinite love, now is it? In fact, it's a god of revenge and vindictiveness. A god of hate and anger.

Thankfully, your god is not omniscient. It gains power by people worshiping it, but that power is waning as humans are returning to love, simple love, that doesn't have a face or a name or a backstory. And that god of love is far more powerful than anything you can find in your book or your canon.
64
@30 I understand your point, but I don't believe that pushing for rights that have legally been obtained can ever be too pushy. Marriage equality took affect the minute the Supreme Court handed down it's ruling and it is incumbent upon all government officials to recognize that marriage equality is the law under which they must operate, not tomorrow but today. Forcing a government official to do the job they are legally bound to do is not being to pushy. It's like asking blacks, who had just won the right to sit at the front of the bus, to still sit at the back until the white folk get used to the idea. The reality is that the white folk are never going to get used to seeing blacks at the front of the bus until they actually see them sitting up front. Same with marriage equality; gays shouldn't have to sit at the back of the bus until str8s get used to the idea. Each and every government bigot needs to be called out the minute the refuse rights to gays, otherwise, those rights held by gays are meaningless.
65
@48: That is really hilarious. Just because your family and marriage are so weak they are threatened by this ruling does not means everyone's is.

Most people teach their kids real values, not bigotry, so they will also be unaffected by this ruling.

Also, please explain how people have "lost legal protection." It seems like a whole bunch of people were added to those protections, which still exist for you. Do you ever say anything that is correct?
66
@65: Nope, Seattleblues never does say anything that is correct. That's his shtick.

He agrees with you about Zach Anderson, by the way, which should've been a very strong hint that you were shamefully wrong.
67
@66: Is that the adult that found a child online and then went to have sex with them? Sorry, but adults should not be allowed to fuck children. I find it odd that you think differently, but we are all entitled to our own opinions.
68
A fine of $10,000 per day? Sounds about right.
69
@7 Taking a government job does not IMPLY that you will follow the law; the oath one takes makes it EXPLICIT not IMPLIED.
70
@48 - Those whose marriages you consider valid, meaningful, and worthwhile have the same access to marriage licenses as they did before, and are no less at liberty to define marriage as they were fit within their families and religious communities than they were before. The only thing that has changed is that states no longer limit access to that contract according to subjective moral distinctions that happen to dovetail, more or less, with your own. This is as it should be.
71
@67: I find it odd that you and Seattleblues choose to frame it in a dishonest way in order to justify destroying the life of an innocent person, who chose to hook up on a dating site with someone who was legal, and later found out that he'd been deceived.

But you and Seattleblues like being wrong, apparently.
72
@71: When is a 14 year old girl legal? Why is a 14 year old child at fault, but not the adult? Are you arguing that the 19 year old adult did not fuck a 14 year old child? Because I am pretty sure everyone but you agree on that.

How is it framed dishonestly? Did a 19 year old adult have sex with a 14 year old child or not?

When did I attempt to destroy his life? I was clear on THREE OCCASIONS in that thread that I disagree with how the sexual predators watchlist is handled, even in this specific instance.

You live in fantasy world, dude. Get a grip. I am sorry you live in a world where adults are not allowed to fuck children, but you just have to deal with that. Or move to a country where adults having sex with children is not frowned upon.
73
Hey, Seattleblues: my straight marriage isn't as good as it used to be, because now there's gay marriage? How does that work? HOW DOES THAT WORK?? Is it like how my health insurance isn't as nice as it was, now that the poors also have it (thanks, Obama!)?
74
Usually, when the Sloggerati are up in arms over something, I tend to take the minority viewpoint - most folks are basic, more or less decent, more or less don't care enough to actually f with someone else's s.

But in this case.. man, i think there needs to be some Draconian-level stuff. Like, it's one thing for people with prejuidices to lash out; it's another for them to, in moments of otherwise calm, intentionally disobey what they know to be the law. In some ways, it's the ultimate betrayal of the concept of governance.

Since it seems the entire system is in on the jig... perhaps not just the clerk and officer's heads need to roll - but the mayor and police commissioner too.
75
@3 notwithstanding what I said in #74; ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE IN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE regardless of their job. What are you, a fascist?
76
@71

Or, you know, you could wonder why people who disagree on nearly everything else agree with this shocking idea- that children cannot have consenting sex with adults.

You could also wonder why you disagree with that concept.

Anderson chose to have high risk sex and, what do you know, it turned out to be high risk. Was the child deceptive? Yes. But I wondwr less about her than this- Where were her parents? (Protip. The welfare of my kids is my first duty in life. Where they are and with whom is a thing I should know at all times when they're minors. Their text messages and internet usage privacy are things they earn, not inherent. This is particularly true when they' re minors with honesty problems and appallingly poor judgement like this child.)

Know what Anderson absolutely knew? This girl was lying from the start, unless promiscuous sex sites are fine with registering minor members, which I find doubtful.. She wasn' t 18. So why would he assume her to be honest about an age she had already lied about? And there' s no young man who doesn't know the potential consequences of being wrong about the girl being old enough.

This was a man who rolled the dice against the odds and lost. The punishment is excessive. But he did commit a felony. He did have sex with a child.

Having said that he also realized thise things and acted responsibly. So, as exhaustively noted, the punishment is too severe.

Your absolutist defense of this man isn't merely puzzling. It's disgusting.
77
@19, 21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 48, 76:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
78
@73

Of course responsible people who had insurance suffered. Higher premiums for poorer coverage are just a fact under Obamacare. Obama evwn directly lied about it. (No, you don' t get to keep your doctor necessarily. No, premiums didn't drop on existing plans. They skyrocketed. Etc etc etc.)

And really, this isn't hard. The effects of this attack on marriage and family are generational. Why would it affect my real marriage or yours? But my grandkids (if my kids decide to have kids) will see a concept of marriage and family so vague as to be meaningless. All because 3% of the population chose to exclude themselves from marriage by their sexual choices but lacked the basic responsibility to accept the consequences of those choices.
79
@77

So you're in the pro child rape camp too? Good to know, freakshow.
80
@78: "Higher premiums for poorer coverage are just a fact under Obamacare."
"[J]ust a fact"? Try "just a lie". I present Exhibits A, B, C, and D. Long story short is that average premiums have risen at rates comparable to (usually slightly lower than) those of previous years. Many low-income people are seeing higher premiums, but that hike is offset by the subsidies, to the tune of (on average) 70% of the total premium.
You're flat-out lying as per the usual. It is factually incorrect to say that premiums have risen significantly under the ACA, and I defy you to produce evidence that the law (which mandates minimum standards of coverage) has somehow forced people to have worse coverage. I said EVIDENCE, not OPINION.

Also, as we've explained to you before, including same-sex couples in marriage doesn't make it any vaguer as an institution. "3% of the population chose to exclude themselves from marriage by their sexual choices"? We allow people who engage in polyamory/swinging/open relationships to get married, despite the fact that "forsaking all others" is right there in your typical marriage vow. Are you saying that we should recriminalize adultery? Because that is the logical (and not all that far-flung) conclusion of your argument that legal marriage should be restricted to a tightly determined formula in keeping with YOUR traditions. While we're at it, why not require a bride to take her groom's surname? You don't get to force your traditions on other people: FUCK YOUR CULTURE.
81
Seattleblues' great great grandfather presumably opposed the ending of slavery "because it would be sooooo unfair to my grandchildren, for them not to be able to own slaves".
82
@78: And on a personal note. You claim that people of younger generations than you will see "a concept of marriage and family so vague as to be meaningless". I take offense to that.

I am 23 years of age. I am a heterosexual man, and I love a particular woman. I should like to someday be married to her.
Now, both she and I strongly support the right of LGBTQ people to be equal under the law, including the right to marry. We both have queer friends and/or family; she herself is bisexual, so it's a more personal issue for her. Many of those queer friends are likely to marry before we do, and yet when she and I stand under the huppa together, what we will have will mean just as much to us as marriage can mean to anyone. She is my companion, my star of dawn, her blue and grey to my black and green. I am not so petty as to let someone else's marital happiness ruin that which will be mine.

You want to talk about marriage being "meaningless"? Talk about the families torn asunder by the closet. There couples who learn, after decades together, that one never truly loved the other, never COULD have loved the other in any way other than as a friend, but entered into the doomed marriage because people like YOU convinced them it was the only way they could be happy. Can you imagine the suffering that causes? Of course you cannot, because your understanding ventures no further than the tip of your nose, and you are willfully averse to the concept that other people are different than you, with different cultures and different life experiences to you.
83
@44 Chase,
Don't be quite so confident - a majority of the world (by a large margin) does not believe gays should be able to marry, it's only the global north that thinks so. You ready to show these savages the light and truth of our ways?
84
@80 "We allow people who engage in polyamory/swinging/open relationships to get married, despite the fact that "forsaking all others" is right there in your typical marriage vow."

The popcorn is popped, I have a beverage in hand, and I am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting to read what Seattleblues has to say about that. C'mon, SB, wow me!
Dance, monkey!
85
National Guard to escort gay couples to the county courthouses to force them to do their jobs?
86
@79:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
87
Dearest Seattleblues once again disappears in the face of a challenge to produce facts to support his pure applesauce. Roaches always scurry for cover when the lights come on.
88
Theodore Gorath and Eudaemonic? Please take your argument about Anderson elsewhere. It's not the subject of this thread, and there's more than enough thread here for Seattleblues to hang himself if you stop making him a pawn in your stupid game.

Speaking of the execrable Mr. Blues, could I also make a request that we stop censoring him, whatever sort of vicious and unconscionable trollery is his stock in trade? Silencing the likes of him only grants him a legitimacy he can't possibly deserve. As unlikely as it is that he can be taught anything of value (though I'll keep trying), the fact that he hasn't even bothered to mount a defense to #70 (or nearly anything I've posted to him in the last year) is proof enough that he can, eventually, be shamed into silence if he's met by reasoning he has no capacity to refute.
89
Ken Mehlman - The reason that Roe v. Wade and abortion make for a bad comparison is that there IS a tangible victim where abortion is concerned; it's only the inherent nebulousness of "personhood" that makes defending that victim a matter of subjective philosophy rather than demonstrable civic utility.

It's not unlikely that we'll see some backlash on the matter of marriage equality and other equal rights issues, but there's no sympathy to play on for SB's people the way there is on the matter of abortion. In fact, it's just the opposite--abortion remains contentious because the not-entirely-untenable notion that the unborn are due our sympathy and protection persists, and probably always will. With gay rights, generally, the only play on sympathy for humans favors the gay community; the only sympathy that can be played on by the opposition is for abstract viewpoints (belief in an anthropomorphic deity or other fixed moral center; the perceived nobility or necessity of breeding; the valuation not only of the human life that already exists, or may already exist depending on how we define it, but of the prospect of making more of what some science suggests we already have too much of [i.e., us]).
90
@83 - I imagine there might be an overwhelming majority of the sort you describe, but it seems to me that tolerance and pluralism are an all but inevitable effect of urbanization and industrialization; moreover, some hunter-gatherer and/or horticultural tribes (the Harakmbut, for instance) have acknowledged same-sex relations, and even marriages, for a considerable time.

Ultimately, we can only enlighten those in our sphere; if that means the industrialized West or the global North. But I suspect the "savages" are quite so homogeneous a group as you assume they are; nor do I think it is particularly over-confident to suggest that tolerance and pluralism looks to be where we are headed, in Worlds both First and Third.
91
@88: I second the motion to stop baleeting so many of his posts. It's no fun when he's whining about censorship instead of telling outrageous lies.
92
Why don't you all just ignore him? Or just engage with him if/ when he makes a valid point. Does that ever happen? I never read his posts then can't follow all the responses after. He has you all jumping to his idiotic tune.
93
"if/when he makes a valid point"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Hahahahaha.
94
Glad to give you a good laugh, originalC.
If this guy is the total moron I assume him to be, then why does anybody/ everybody give him the time of day?
It just means he'll come back again. And again. Where is the value in that? He hijacks threads with his ugly energy.
95
LOL

Maybe it's a guy thing LavaGirl. We're amused by Subhumanblues because...... well it is an amusing creature.

So why not let it rant and rave while we smack it around like a male cat plays with a mouse.

I get your point though, my female cat used to get tired/disgusted with the game and jump in and kill the mouse.

So perhaps it is a guy thing.
96
@94 - For all his vitriol, his basic arguments are common enough that I, for one, value the opportunity to refute them; his inability to construct counter-arguments and refusal to concede even in light of that are also something we need to get used to addressing, given the immovability of certain portions of the population.

My responses to him are often my best opportunities to write on these subjects.
97
@70

The state has a valid role, whatever your ilk think, in using its communally granted authority to maintain our common cultural and social stability.

I know. You and Savage and the rest of the barbarians hate that living in a society is a trade off. You get relative safety, property rights, legal protections of various kinds, etc. And you give up absolute freedom to behave as you wish. You accept that adults make choices and accept the consequences of those choices, rather than crying like babies. Unfortunately 'adults' and words like liberal or progressive are mutually exclusive. And all your half baked idiot toddler ideas of government policy show that with crystal clarity.

I rarely respond to you because, for all your wordy bs blather, what you write comes down to this- nobody should accept the consequences of their own choices ever. We, people like you think, should penalize good life choices and socialize the negative affects of bad ones. Well that's bullsit. It would create a society of people like you and the rest of the moron gallery here. In other words, as Greece is ahowing now, your stupid ideas don' t bloody work, you cretinous waste of space.

This is true of financial matters. It's showing in the decay of family in socialist hells sround the world. And now here in the greatest nation on earth marriage and family have fallen victim to the liberal terror of anyone ever under any circumstances growing the hell up.

You want vitriol, you overgrown toddler? Well than, go to hell. And take the rest of the morally bankrupt trash like you along, will you? Sooner would be better, barbarian scum.
99
@98 It isn't. In fact when you get right down to it same sex marriage is a conservative idea. The reality of that conservative core is likely why once the idea of same sex marriage caught on it's acceptance spread so fast.
100
@97:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
101
"The Gays have some really great lawyers and you fuck with The Gays at your peril."

And what "peril" is that, pray tell Danny boy?
102
@99:

There have been a couple of interesting articles published in the wake of the SCOTUS decision (and I wish I could find the links), pointing to a very germane aspect of the issue that heretofore has seldom been presented (at least publicly), namely, that much of conservatives' fear over Marriage Equality stems from their perception of it as a direct threat to the traditional patriarchal paradigm under which marriage has existed. It can be seen in the common query, "if two men/women marry - then which one is the husband/wife?", the implication being that the hierarchical male-dominant/female subordinate structure of so-called "traditional marriage" gets thrown out the window; if both partners in a marriage have equanimity, then nobody is "in charge", and that, by socially normalizing this condition, men lose their traditional dominance in the relationship.
103
I can't believe no one has mentioned this but ..... they really couldn't get a marriage license in more - HEAD ? I mean you'd think that'd be the place .....
104
@99, If you just go by the textbook definition of conservatism this is obviously true, but conservatism went off the rails a while ago. Whatever meaning the word once had has been hijacked by people who preach about family values and fiscal responsibility while advocating policies that actively violate those principles.

I would say history will be harsh (and it will), but the present isn't exactly a good look for them either.
105
@101:

Did the inclusion of the word "lawyers" not clue you in? Or are you really just that stupid?
106
@105
Oooooh Lawyerrrrzzz!!!! 'Scuse me while I shit my pants. Not.
Yeah pardon me for being "just that stupid" freak.
107
Ok SB, I can't talk these guys into giving you the flick, so I'll just send you love.
Still won't bother to read your silly words though, don't like getting disturbed over nothing.
108
@106:

Well, you're the one who apparently had difficulty making the quite obvious connection between lawyers and peril. So, if the shit-encrusted pants fit...
109
@97 - I'm not sure your profligate name-calling, dog-whistling, and bile-spewing does much for your cause or credibility, even among those sympathetic to your viewpoint. At the very least, anyone reading along would have to conclude that, to the degree that you refer to anything in the way of content at all, you do little to address the actual content of my post, none of which says anything you seem to believe it does.

I have always been of the mind that living in a society is a trade-off; I'm not sure how my support of public education, universal health care, environmental regulations, and, of course, basic laws against theft, assault, and murder could be construed as anything other than a recognition that society, in order to function, requires sacrifices for a common good in exchange for access to the kinds of basic services and utilities that keep citizens healthy and productive. If you can find a post of mine wherein I suggest that individuals deserve impunity from any and all behavioral considerations, I challenge you here to copy & paste it, or link to it. An apology should follow if you fail to do so; your silence will be construed as an admission that no such evidence could be found, but that you lacked the character to apologize (to no one's surprise, I'm afraid).

Now, I have suggested that legislating moral principles to the degree that they do not dovetail with empirically demonstrable civic utilities is not compatible--if words mean what they mean, anyway--with free exercise of religion; that is, if individuals are not at liberty to make moral determinations for themselves, free from the moral constraints of others, provided that the exercises of one's liberties to not interfere with the exercises of others', then what, exactly, is one freely exercising in and through one's religion (or irreligion)? You can certainly disagree with this line of reasoning, but you have yet to make any real argument against it.

You actually seem, on the whole, to be referring to a whole mosaic of political opinions in your unhinged rant. It's probably best that we stay on topic, the theme here being same-sex marriage. The only matter at hand is whether the state can or should limit access to marriage licenses based on subjective moral findings.

If you believe that my conviction that marriage, as a legal contract, should not be held hostage to highly subjective beliefs regarding marriage, the spiritual institution; or marriage, the social bonding ritual; or marriage, the breeding of two humans for the purpose of making more human cubs, then it's incumbent upon you to make an argument, not just an assertion. After all, you live in a state which voted democratically to recognize same-sex marriage, in a nation which, by process of judicial review (the legitimacy of which you're welcome to dispute, though I have to wonder why, for all the hemming and hawing about activist judges, no serious bills challenging judicial review have ever come to light), has essentially extended that right to other states. You've said before, when your view was the status quo, that the burden was on we who wished to argue against it. Now that we have the status quo, why is it not now on you to explain why the current condition is wrong, in terms that are at least philosophically precise and consistent, if not legally actionable?

Maybe it's a little cruel of me to ask for a level of sophistication that you've never, to my eye, displayed, so let me break this down into a series of questions:

--What consequences are being avoided by same-sex couples entering into marital contracts? Please be specific.

--What "good" life choices (sub-question: according to whose definition of good?) are penalized, and/or what negative affects of "bad" life choices are socialized, by the entrance of same-sex couples into marital contracts? Please be specific.

--What does Greece have to do with same-sex marriage? Please be specific.

--What is the specific relationship, in your mind, between same-sex marriage and growing the hell up? Please ... well, I already built "specific" into the last sentence, so, like, you know.

Finally ... I've been married for nearly 19 years; my wife and I own our own businesses, pay all our taxes, are currently producing one play set to open in December as I raise funds to tour another to New York in August. I've never taken unemployment. We were buying our own health insurance for a year before the ACA kicked in; the "subsidies" for which we're eligible have only brought the premiums "down" to the rate we were paying during that year. We'll see how long that lasts. I have a clean driving record, no arrests. I'm not a theist, but I am a religious practitioner, and have a number of moral and metaphysical convictions that I come back to as guiding principles.

This isn't a boast; I'm only trying to show why I'm so very, very perplexed as to what I've done, or failed to do, to earn labels like "overgrown toddler," "morally bankrupt trash," and "barbarian scum." What exactly would it take to satisfy you that I'm an honest broker, and at least as much an upstanding citizen as you? Will only rolling over and accepting that your (undefended, unsupported) views are true convince you? Is my very personhood contingent on my obedience to your dictates?

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.