Jailed Clerk Kim Davis Just Presented A 'Remedy' That Could Fix The Situation For Everyone
Judge Bunning in ordering the imprisonment of Davis stated that: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He further explained that the clerk’s good-faith belief is “simply not a viable defense,” dismissing her appeal to God’s moral law and freedom of conscience. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.
Previous comments...
That being said, if I were the Rowan County Clerk, I would tell the court she is ready to comply with the court's demands. After getting out of jail, create a sign at the county clerk's office, saying that the court's new definition of marriage is now in force and the following relationships will now receive "licenses" at the office:
1) Man/woman
2) Man/man
3) Woman/woman
4) 1 Woman / 2 or more men
5) 1 Man / 2 or more women
6) 2 or more men / 2 or more women
7) Man/cousin
8) Woman/cousin
9) Man/mother
10) Woman/father
11) Man/granny
12) Woman/grandpa
13) Man/sister
14) Man/computer
15) Woman/smartphone
16) Man/game console
17) Woman/horse
18) Woman/dog
19) Man/dog
20) Man/goat
21) Woman/cat
Per the court's new, wider definition of marriage, the only requirements for a marriage license in Rowan County are:
1) At least 1 adult human 18 years old or older
2) At least 1 legal resident of Rowan County
3) Non-humans can be of any age
4) All humans must express their love for each other
5) Non-humans are not required to express love
.
I understand that this is likely not the literal intent behind your analogy, but please keep in mind that words have meaning, and we should choose our words with more care.
Your post also equates homosexuality with bestiality. You also appear to subscribe to the false idea that the only thing stopping people from having sex with their relatives, pets, and livestock was the rigid definition of marriage held up by our moral crusaders in congress. Do you really think this will become a rampant problem?
And honestly, what would be the issue with close relatives getting "married?" An elderly sister and brother who are taking care of each other and living together could get "married" to make paperwork easier if one of them passes, etc. What horrible things will happen if that becomes legal? I think all the hang wringing over this change is blown out of proportion and simply reactionary.
And finally, yes I agree that government should get out of marriage entirely, and that is why this decision is a good thing. It is one step closer. It is one fewer type of union that government is blocking from being "married," so that means it is one small amount freer. It rarely happens anymore that we become more free with government decisions, so let's celebrate the small victories while we can... Rather than deride them as the beginning of the end of civilized society.
I especially like the smartphone relationship - know a couple of people who are married to theirs!
Jan
The gov should get out of the business of personal relationships, making babies (or not), healthcare in general...as a matter of fact...it's better if they get out of everything (to paraphrase Gandalf). OK - they can keep national defense and a few other things.
Jan, feeling generous
Always in motion is the future.
(Yoda)
By my estimation, 95% of marriages are long-term failures. Only about 5% are any good. Marriage is the riskiest choice a person can make in life; nowadays, it usually turns out very badly...
Of all the "slippery slope" arguments, the case against polygamy is, by far, the weakest. How can we deny love among more than 2 adults?
Again, my answer is that it's none of the government's business what happens in the bedroom, bathroom, or weedroom. There should be no "licenses" or tax-favored treatment to anyone here. Contracts can be entered into and later disputes resolved by the courts, but that's really where it should end.
a. The federal judge swears them in as citizens then
a. puts the state drivers license clerk in jail.
b. But honors the request of the new citizens.
I had to tone this one down on account of laughter.
Looking at the whole situation objectively why wouldn't polygamy be legal at that point in all 50 states?
For the answer - wait a bit ACLU will be on it in a NY minute.