Full Interview: Kim Davis Talks To Megyn Kelly About Gay Marriage Licenses

a reply to: Deaf Alien

If she violates the court order she can be fined as well as jailed. She could,in fact, be jailed for a long time.
abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for correcting me.

I suppose my point was that business owners have the right to do whatever they want that include running their businesses into ground by disobeying the laws. With government officials what can we do? The only way is to impeach.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The only way is to impeach.

That is the answer.
However I wonder why they do not.
Because the will of the people.
That should not be ignored no matter how correct any feel.
It is amazing how many that wiped their ass with the constitution now are trying to clean the crap off of it.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: dawnstar

It is in the definition the term marriage includes religion yet the term civil union is not defined as marriage

one does not have to agree with my words for them to be true

believe what you wish

When you say something that is actually correct then we might be compelled to believe it....

The word "marriage" means a very close relationship or union.

It doesn't even specifically mean two people getting married. It can be used in many different situations.

So... you're wrong; believe what you wish. You don't have to agree with facts for them to be true, you can say stupid stuff all you want.

Well now the facts get changed to pacify the whiners.

It is amazing how the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Waa waa waa let us change the definitions to suit our current debauchery.

a reply to: deadeyedick

In 1563, the Catholic Church decreed that marriage was a sacred ritual to be performed in a church. They talked about doing this a few centuries earlier, Coontz says, but it would have rendered a lot of marriages invalid, because no one got married in a church.

Meanwhile, Protestants declared clergymen's right to marriage while warning not to love one's spouse too much. A lot of people were still weirded out by the concept of affection in marriage -- one Virginia colonist wrote that a female friend was "more fond of her husband perhaps than the Politeness of the day allows." (In his defense, PDA does suck.) Throughout pre-Industrial Europe, though, historian E.A. Wrigley wrote that marriage "is better described as a repertoire of adaptable systems than as a pattern."

Enlightenment: Love in marriage is kind of important, too.

Salon thinkers started ruminating on marriage and decided apathetic partners were a sad thing. Two lovebirds should have the freedom to choose their union, they thought, as opposed to parents making marriage decisions on their behalf, elevating the importance of companionship and cooperation. Marriage started to become the sort of private partnership we recognize today.

Critics, of course, claimed that this equality between partners was the destruction of marriage as civilization knew it, because it undermined the male authority that glued households together. Silly women!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

marriage has evolved and been redefined all through history moving away from being what was basically a contractual agreement and transaction between to men exchanging daughters to be wives without any care as to love or attraction to what we have now. It wasn't till the mid 1500's that the Roman Catholic church, although they wanted to do it earlier, but it would have made too many marriages invalid since most people didn't get married in a church. and heck, early colonists criticized a women's fondness to her husband.

I think most women would be greatful for the whines of our ancestors that replaced the idea of being sold on the auction block with the idea of being able to chose your mate for love even if some of their counterparts saw the ideas as "debauchery".

Most women wouldn't like what that "traditional" marriage was a few centuries ago, heck most men wouldn't like it either!

a reply to: dawnstar
Except all through history is not very relevant because the last 100yrs have been the most productive.

The values that are being sought are not the values that led us to the state of technology we see today.

a reply to: deadeyedick

history is always relevant since it helps us get a perspective of where we were, where we are, and in which direction we are heading. And, the idea that marriage should rest solely in the domain of religion isn't historically supported in any way.
And just what values are you seeking? Are you sure they ever did enjoy prominence anytime in history? Or is it more that you are longing for a illusionary vision of a time gone by that only existed in the tv shows of my youth?

a reply to: dawnstar


I do not mind that you keep your head in the sand

yes culture has much to do with perception

it also makes you appreciate the moves towards equality that were made in the past.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: dawnstar


I do not mind that you keep your head in the sand

yes culture has much to do with perception

Ok.

You really need to stop telling people that their heads are in the sand while you're sitting there exclaiming how you're baffled as to why someone should end up in jail for breaking the law.

It's getting so stale.

a reply to: deadeyedick

So can I ask you, what is you're stance on gay marriage and homosexual behavior in general?

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: dawnstar


I do not mind that you keep your head in the sand

yes culture has much to do with perception

Ok.

You really need to stop telling people that their heads are in the sand while you're sitting there exclaiming how you're baffled as to why someone should end up in jail for breaking the law.

It's getting so stale.

I do not feel baffled

I will take your word for it.

originally posted by: Skinon
a reply to: deadeyedick

So can I ask you, what is you're stance on gay marriage and homosexual behavior in general?

I think a civil union would allow for more than just gays to benefit from the gov. and ins. companies.

I support the traditional marriage values and stand against anything in public that may go against that.

Beyond that it is none of my concern.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: dawnstar


I do not mind that you keep your head in the sand

yes culture has much to do with perception

Ok.

You really need to stop telling people that their heads are in the sand while you're sitting there exclaiming how you're baffled as to why someone should end up in jail for breaking the law.

It's getting so stale.

I do not feel baffled

I will take your word for it.

You have to take someones "word for it" that braking the law is wrong and could end in prison time?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Is this one of them rhetorical thingies?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Is this one of them rhetorical thingies?

Sigh...

No

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Just for the record then I 100% get the point you and others are making.

I just disagree with it for various reasons.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Skinon
a reply to: deadeyedick

So can I ask you, what is you're stance on gay marriage and homosexual behavior in general?

I think a civil union would allow for more than just gays to benefit from the gov. and ins. companies.

I support the traditional marriage values and stand against anything in public that may go against that.

You support Separate, but not Equal.

There will always be Finger Pointing: "your parents aren't married, they only have Civil Union, you're a loser".

Doesn't work.

dp

a reply to: deadeyedick

Why can't Same-Sex Couples have Traditional Family Values? and what Heterosexual Marriage can you point out has those "Traditional" Values?