LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:00 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:No...no it wasn't.

Well...effective in letting people know you don't understand what it means, I guess.
No effective in getting peoples panties in a wad so they can rant as they are prone to do.

Your welcome.

In other words, explicitly trolling. Don't you have rules against that on this? Isn't it more than a little hyprocritical for an admin to be breaking the forum rules so egregiously?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:47 pm

Zurai wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:No...no it wasn't.

Well...effective in letting people know you don't understand what it means, I guess.
No effective in getting peoples panties in a wad so they can rant as they are prone to do.

Your welcome.
In other words, explicitly trolling. Don't you have rules against that on this? Isn't it more than a little hyprocritical for an admin to be breaking the forum rules so egregiously?

No trolling would be if I take position for the sole purpose of getting people upset. I take my positions for a variety of reasons(just like politicians), the fact I defend them with statements that happen to make some people go on rants is a not unexpected side benefit and certainly not trolling.

I try to avoid misrepresenting my position it is however always subject to evolution.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:10 pm

You misrepresented your position in this very thread.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:39 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:You misrepresented your position in this very thread.

No I haven't.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:12 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:You misrepresented your position in this very thread.

No he hasn't. Rip's position has and will for the foreseeable future be: tiny government independent, semi conservative devils advocate rant baiter, willing to either actually or metaphorically accept and own all real world repurcussions for his personal ideological (however ideosyncratic) worldviews which may or may not align with his political devil's advocacy.

I think that's pretty accurate.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:29 pm

No it isn't.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:58 pm

Jaymann wrote:No it isn't.

Then how would you describe Rip?

Having been on the generally opposing side for some arguements some of the time...

By his own admission,
Enjoys winding up liberals,
Is not Republican, generally identifies with Libertarian but isn't beholden to any establishment ideology
Is socially liberal, but in the deregulation let people do what they want way, yet often argues the conservative view point (speculation, because liberall nanny statism is as bad and probably worse than conservative nanny statism) for example, drugs, gambling, etc.
Very personal responsibility driven.
And when pressed, at least publicly states that he would rather die than take gubment "handouts".

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:02 am

Combustible Lemur wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:You misrepresented your position in this very thread.
No he hasn't. Rip's position has and will for the foreseeable future be: tiny government independent, semi conservative devils advocate rant baiter, willing to either actually or metaphorically accept and own all real world repurcussions for his personal ideological (however ideosyncratic) worldviews which may or may not align with his political devil's advocacy.

I think that's pretty accurate.

You should write my biography.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:38 am

Combustible Lemur wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:You misrepresented your position in this very thread.
No he hasn't. Rip's position has and will for the foreseeable future be: tiny government independent, semi conservative devils advocate rant baiter, willing to either actually or metaphorically accept and own all real world repurcussions for his personal ideological (however ideosyncratic) worldviews which may or may not align with his political devil's advocacy.

I think that's pretty accurate.

That's not the lying I was talking about.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:29 am

This is not the Rip you're looking for.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:13 am

Rip wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:You misrepresented your position in this very thread.
No he hasn't. Rip's position has and will for the foreseeable future be: tiny government independent, semi conservative devils advocate rant baiter, willing to either actually or metaphorically accept and own all real world repurcussions for his personal ideological (however ideosyncratic) worldviews which may or may not align with his political devil's advocacy.

I think that's pretty accurate.
You should write my biography.

Meh, just get tired of everybody screaming troll. You are, but in the Colbert way, just less funny.

As for the other two. Fair enough, I'm out.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:20 am

Reuters

The county clerk from Kentucky who was jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples said Monday she will not authorize the licenses now that she has returned to work, but she will also not block her deputies from issuing them.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, 49, who has said her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said licenses would state that they are being issued under a U.S. District Court order.

Davis, who returned to work on Monday, told a news conference any marriage licenses issued would not carry her name, title or her personal authorization. She added she would take no action against deputy clerks who issue licenses, although she does not believe they have the authority to do so.
...
On Friday, Davis asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to allow her to continue banning marriage licenses for her entire office until a lawsuit against her is decided. Her attorneys argued that Bunning's initial order had only covered couples who were suing her.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:23 am

So...she's going back to not doing her job? That's a jailin'.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:36 am

Smoove_B wrote:So...she's going back to not doing her job? That's a jailin'.

I think as long as licenses are being issued she'll stay out of jail. Once the legislature is back in session they can alter the form so her signature is no longer on it.

In her mind she wins. Everyone but the religious fringe can now forget about her because marriage licenses will be available to everyone in Rowan county.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:55 am

Zurai wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:No...no it wasn't.

Well...effective in letting people know you don't understand what it means, I guess.
No effective in getting peoples panties in a wad so they can rant as they are prone to do.

Your welcome.
In other words, explicitly trolling. Don't you have rules against that on this? Isn't it more than a little hyprocritical for an admin to be breaking the forum rules so egregiously?

No, it's well established that Rip is allowed carte blanch to threadshit and troll and no one will do anything to contain him. He ruins every thread he's in, and you can't even put the SOB on "Foe."

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:20 am

If you get riled up over his posts, he considers it a win. Best to just ignore him (I know...I know...easier said than done).

I actually like Rip when he's not discussing politics. He's genuinely nice outside of R&P discussions. And even when he is on a contrarian high horse, he will readily admit his end goal is trolling liberal mind sets. While that's not an excuse for such behavior, I can at least view his replies as such and either engage in a little light hearted arguing, or just move past them if I feel I'm not able to do so without getting wound up (and thus giving him what he wants).

I realize I sometimes fail in that latter effort, though.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:26 am

Exodor wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:So...she's going back to not doing her job? That's a jailin'.
I think as long as licenses are being issued she'll stay out of jail. Once the legislature is back in session they can alter the form so her signature is no longer on it.

In her mind she wins. Everyone but the religious fringe can now forget about her because marriage licenses will be available to everyone in Rowan county.

So she's allowing her deputies, who in her opinion don't have the authority to issue licenses, to issue licenses. She will not be authorizing the licenses which she thinks will render them invalid. She's still trying to block these marriages illegally and should be fired and/or jailed.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:29 am

CBS

Kim Davis, the embattled county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, said Monday that she is being "forced to disobey her God" by allowing her office to issue licenses to gay couples.
...
Speaking outside the Rowan County Courthouse as she returned to work this morning, Davis announced that any licenses issued by her office, with or without her name on the form, would be "unauthorized."

"I want the whole world to know ... If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them. However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."
...
She said that having her name on the marriage certificate, whether she signs it or not, "authorizes marriage that conflicts with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman [and] violates my deeply-held religious convictions and conscience. For me, this would be an act of disobedience to my God.

"Whether I personally issue the license or whether one of my deputies issues it, the result is the same. The license is issued under the authority of Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County."

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:31 am

"Whether I personally issue the license or whether one of my deputies issues it, the result is the same. The license is issued under the authority of Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County."

That sums it up. Regardless of her waffling, the license is issued under her authority, and they will be issued. If she doesn't like it, she can GTFO.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:33 am

Unfortunately, that's what is supposed to happen.

"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight, and I certainly don't want to be a whipping post; I am no hero," Davis said. "I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience. And so this morning, I am forced to fashion a remedy that reconciles my conscience with Judge Bunning's orders. Effective immediately and until an accommodation is provided by those with the authority to provide it, any marriage license issued by my office will not be issued or authorized by me."

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:35 am

Isgrimnur wrote:CBS

Kim Davis, the embattled county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, said Monday that she is being "forced to disobey her God" by allowing her office to issue licenses to gay couples.
...
Speaking outside the Rowan County Courthouse as she returned to work this morning, Davis announced that any licenses issued by her office, with or without her name on the form, would be "unauthorized."

"I want the whole world to know ... If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them. However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."
...
She said that having her name on the marriage certificate, whether she signs it or not, "authorizes marriage that conflicts with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman [and] violates my deeply-held religious convictions and conscience. For me, this would be an act of disobedience to my God.

"Whether I personally issue the license or whether one of my deputies issues it, the result is the same. The license is issued under the authority of Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County."

So why doesn't she quit her job? What an asshole.

I also don't recall when her God weighed in on state-issued licenses. She's not consecrating a marriage in defiance of her God. She's just saying that the couple is entitled to all the state benefits if they do get married (at the hand of some terrible sinner!). Seems like it falls under the "Give unto Caesar" rubric.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:38 am

I'm going to start referring to these sort of mental gymnastics as fig-picking the Bible.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:27 pm

ABC

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis' name was removed from the first marriage license issued to a same-sex couple today following her return to work in Rowan County earlier this morning.

Deputy Clerk Brian Mason issued the license to Shannon and Carmen Wampler-Collins, a couple who met 23 years ago at Smith College. Davis never left her office during the process.

Instead of her name appearing on the license, it said it was issued pursuant to a court order and under the authority of the city of Morehead, Kentucky.

A preacher at the back of the room tried to shout the couple down, urging them to repent and not get the license.

The couple's supporters tried to drown him out, chanting, "Love Has Won."

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:56 pm

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:44 pm

Heckling marriage certification now? How low can you get?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:49 pm

Not having to work for 6.5 days a week gives you a lot of time to find hobbies. /s

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:09 pm

Rick Santorum proving that he ain't no rocket scientist.

"Because the Supreme Court says something doesn't necessarily mean it's the law of the land"

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:38 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Heckling marriage certification now? How low can you get?

I just imagine that clerk's office bustling with an assortment of petitioners and riff-raff. Goats on rope leashes, loose chickens, protestors, hecklers...

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:40 pm

Zurai wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:No...no it wasn't.

Well...effective in letting people know you don't understand what it means, I guess.
No effective in getting peoples panties in a wad so they can rant as they are prone to do.

Your welcome.
In other words, explicitly trolling. Don't you have rules against that on this? Isn't it more than a little hyprocritical for an admin to be breaking the forum rules so egregiously?

I should probably put this in my sig, but I'll just repeat it when the question is asked. There is no rule, nor has there ever been a rule, against trolling at OO (or at GG before that). If you'd like to have a discussion about that, you're welcome to start one in Meta.

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:48 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:No...no it wasn't.

Well...effective in letting people know you don't understand what it means, I guess.
No effective in getting peoples panties in a wad so they can rant as they are prone to do.

Your welcome.
In other words, explicitly trolling. Don't you have rules against that on this? Isn't it more than a little hyprocritical for an admin to be breaking the forum rules so egregiously?
I should probably put this in my sig, but I'll just repeat it when the question is asked. There is no rule, nor has there ever been a rule, against trolling at OO (or at GG before that). If you'd like to have a discussion about that, you're welcome to start one in Meta.

What about the stuff mentioned here?

ImLawBoy wrote:After reviewing the events of recent weeks and months, staff has decided to make some modifications to the Code of Conduct. Our goal here is to try to make the forum community a place where everyone feels welcome, and that is an enjoyable place to pull up a chair and post a while. At the same time, we are aware there are certain types of disruptions that are causing the community harm, and we want to be able to address those on the rare occasions when they occur.

The first change is the following addition to the "About the Octopus Overlords forums" section:
In extraordinary circumstances, if staff feels that a poster is causing significant harm and disruption for the sole purpose of causing that harm, then staff may choose to remove that poster from the community. This will not occur in response to unpopular opinions or philosophies, or to the reasonable defense of those ideas. This is at the sole discretion of staff.
The second change is the following addition to the "Self Moderation" guideline:
Sometimes, two people - two otherwise normal, intelligent, decent, rational people - just will not like each other. That's life. Please just ignore those posters and pursue your own discussions. Leave any disagreements you have in the threads they take place in. If you can't come to terms with each other, it is not acceptable to disrupt the forums, derail threads, or harass the other person in order to continue your private war.
The underlined portion is the new portion of this section.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:49 pm

As said in my prior post, if you want to have a discussion about this, please post in Meta.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:28 pm

hepcat wrote:Rick Santorum proving that he ain't no rocket scientist.

"Because the Supreme Court says something doesn't necessarily mean it's the law of the land"

Is he running for President? Because I would love to see him in the white house and suddenly have people actually educate him.

I would be embarrassed to even vote with such a poor understanding of your system of governance, but he is a figure of some prominence? Is this like his fallback career after not making it in the NFL or something?

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:36 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Unfortunately, that's what is supposed to happen.

"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight, and I certainly don't want to be a whipping post; I am no hero," Davis said. "I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience. And so this morning, I am forced to fashion a remedy that reconciles my conscience with Judge Bunning's orders. Effective immediately and until an accommodation is provided by those with the authority to provide it, any marriage license issued by my office will not be issued or authorized by me."

That's some real Eye of the Tiger shit right there.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:46 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
hepcat wrote:Rick Santorum proving that he ain't no rocket scientist.

"Because the Supreme Court says something doesn't necessarily mean it's the law of the land"
Is he running for President? Because I would love to see him in the white house and suddenly have people actually educate him.

I would be embarrassed to even vote with such a poor understanding of your system of governance, but he is a figure of some prominence? Is this like his fallback career after not making it in the NFL or something?

He was a U.S. senator (which you probably knew).

Huckabee and Santorum say things like this not because they're completely ignorant of the constitution but because they're keeping hope alive for further revisions in court interpretation. They want popular pressure for future decisions diluting civil rights protections or adding special exemptions for "religious liberty" or what have you.

A war on the court's authority also makes its composition a weightier campaign issue. They want to rally the base to elect a president who will nominate the next Scalia and Alito to replace Ginsberg and Kennedy.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:19 pm

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:30 pm

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:04 pm

Not counting Barbara Valentin?

Xmann · Post by **Xmann** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:09 pm

hepcat wrote:

You win the internet for today!

<----slow claps

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:35 pm

One week was apparently the magic number:

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge's ruling that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, believes same-sex marriage is a sin and cited "God's authority" in refusing to obey the ruling.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning released Davis from jail on the condition that she not interfere with her employees as they issue marriage licenses. When she returned to work, Davis altered the marriage forms by removing her name, making deputy clerk Brian Mason initial the form instead of sign it, and then requiring the form to be notarized.

"A notary has nothing to do with it," Mason's attorney, Richard Hughes, told The Associated Press on Friday after filing a status report with the judge. Hughes said it was "really bizarre" that Davis would alter the forms.

"Unless she's got a really good reason, and I'll certainly be patient and wait to hear it, the only inference I personally can draw from it is she is trying to circumvent the court's order," he said.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:25 am

Buzzfeed

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis interfered with her deputy clerks by altering marriage licenses after she was released from jail for contempt of court, according to a court filing Monday by four Kentucky couples represented by the ACLU.

“Davis immediately began interfering with the Deputy Clerk’s issuance of marriage licenses upon returning to her office on September 14,” the lawyers wrote in the filing.

The couples are asking U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning to order Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses without recent changes — she had modified the forms to say they were issued by a “notary public” and “pursuant to a federal court order.” Those alterations raise questions about the licenses’ validity and stigmatize same-sex couples, the plaintiffs argue.
...
If Davis were to disobey the further order requested by the plaintiffs on Monday, their lawyers argue that Bunning should fine Davis and temporarily reassign marriage license duties to another entity in a receivership. The couples do not request that Davis be sent to jail.