Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

see my post to BH above. easier thataway i don't have to retype it. hehe

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I have seen pretty much the same type of push for redefining marriage on these boards. Most have switched to wanting the government to only issue licenses for social contracts and having nothing to do with marriage.

They want marriage to be the sole domain of religion. In other words marriage would be denied to anyone who wasn't religious. Those people just can't seem to accept that marriage has never belonged to a faith. They are block heads and it is like watching a trainwreck when they "try" to reason such a change. They do not have any constitutional grounds to lobby such a change, but they still try.

I expect we will continue to see them push for such things for a few more years before they become a footnote of stupidity in our history books.

Bible humpers 😂😂

a reply to: undo

as marriage doesn't need government to qualify it.

My husband and I had our first ceremony without a license - performed by a LICENSED officiant, but it was not deemed "legal" in the eyes of the court. Yet.

A few months later, we got the 'official state-issued' license, and my husband's cousin came and signed it (he, also, was a LICENSED officiant). Only after that, could I do all those groovy married things like change my name, and have my husband listed as a legitimate 'legal' partner.

We could have foregone the 'civil' part of it altogether - but it was in our best interest as a team to go ahead and "legalize" it in the eyes of the government. Yes, there are 'common law' states (and mine is one of them), but nevertheless, when I called our state capitol and asked about it, I was dressed down for not having a legit license.....and told that the state doesn't (in practice) acknowledge "common law."

It was ridiculous.

WE HAD TO GET THE LICENSE before the state would acknowledge the union.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah, I don't care how they think of marriage. If they want to think that marriage is a religious entity, it doesn't bother me. As long as the LAW protects me equally to have my idea of marriage, I'm good.

The difference is, I don't insist they live their marriage according to MY idea of marriage. It would send them reeling. And yet, they have the idea they can force me to see it like they do... Craziness!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

(that's cause they make money off of it. it was a win-win. they helped the wives who were being robbed when their husbands died, and charged a fee to issue the license for their part in providing legal documents . its all about legalities with money. ain't got nothing to do with love or sex or romance. lol)

a reply to: undo

And the churches don't "make money" off of performing ceremonies?
(Answer: Yes - they do.)

How Much Does it Cost to Marry in the Church? (this is for Catholic weddings)

Techinically, nothing............but yes - it is 'expected' that the couple will 'make donations' to the priests, the musicians, for the 'hall rental' etc.

Actually, nothing. Sacraments are not for sale. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2121) makes clear that the First Commandment forbids simony, which is the buying or selling of sacred things.

It’s appropriate, however, for the bride and groom to share their joy and, in generosity, to contribute to the support of the Church and its ministers. The donations and stipends associated with a wedding fall into three categories:

(1) Donation to the church. Traditionally, the couple makes a donation to the church in which they are married. Sometimes an amount—or a range—is suggested, but often it’s left to the discretion of the couple. If the bride or groom or both are registered parishioners, the suggested amount may be minimal, or none. The assumption is that they are already supporting the parish with their regular financial contributions.

Some couples marry in a historic chapel or church. Keep in mind that wedding donations can be an important source of support for older buildings.

Couples should ask about the suggested donation if it is not specified in the written marriage policy. A helpful rule of thumb is to consider the donation in relation to the total amount spent on the wedding. In no case, however, should financial circumstances prevent a couple from approaching the Church for marriage.

(2) Music ministers and others. In addition to an organist, weddings may feature instrumentalists, a cantor and other singers. Musicians’ fees are often explained in the parish’s marriage policy, or they can be discussed when the couple meets with the music director.

If the celebration includes a Mass, altar servers should be given a small offering.

(3) Celebrant’s stipend. The services of the priest or deacon are free, but it is customary to offer a stipend. Usually, no specific amount is suggested. Couples may want to consider not only the time devoted to the rehearsal and wedding, but also the effort put into the marriage preparation process.

A final note

Donations and stipends should be placed in clearly marked envelopes and given to the intended recipient. Celebrants are not usually expected to distribute the stipends.

Some parishes require that certain fees be paid in advance, for example, a deposit to confirm the date, or the musician’s fee. Any remaining donations and stipends should be taken care of prior to the wedding day.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

WE HAD TO GET THE LICENSE before the state would acknowledge the union.

There is Legal Covenant Marriage in 3 states. Arizona, Louisiana, Arkansas.

Those that took advantage? 1%

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: undo

And the churches don't "make money" off of performing ceremonies?
(Answer: Yes - they do.)

no no, i'm not talking about a case of who makes money off of services. i'm talking about the legal stuff from the state, which didn't start till women started complaining that the church was taking their husbands estates after they died,leaving the wife with nothing, even if they helped their husband build the house, build the business, even if she inherited the money from her parents, or even earned the money herself. etc. so gov stepped in and said, we charge you fee for legal document that protect you from church. then, it was we charge fee for legal documents to protect you from each other. and it was fine tuned from there. all i'm saying is the marriage is really just you and the person you love. the state got involved when the church was taking the estate of the husband right out from under his wife and children, when the husband died.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think it's a control issue. Religious people who aren't bigots don't really care if gays get a marriage license. They have more of a live and let live attitude. It's the bigots who hide behind religion who can't stand the idea that these people whom they consider inferior get the same treatment they do. It's just killing them.

a reply to: kaylaluv

i think it's a matter of not understanding scripture, personally. marriage, in christian lingo (and she is a christian, right?) is the moment two people fall in love and begin to have sexual thoughts about each other. that's the really, down to the nitty gritty, definition. the state inserts itself into it in modern times, as a way to protect the partners in the business partnership (which is the only aspect of marriage the state can be involved in (strictly speaking, that is. the state can't tell you what time of day to have sex with your partner, for example)

traditions and social customs aside, the legal stuff is not the marriage, it's business parternship stuff.

originally posted by: undo

traditions and social customs aside, the legal stuff is not the marriage, it's business parternship stuff.

Marriage is defined by those in it - - - not from the outside.

Legal Marriage is called Legal for a reason. Its a contract to protect rights and property of those joining as "one".

a reply to: Annee

i realize that. i'm just pointing out that you can be married anywhere, just by both people saying they are. government has no say over that. the legal document is not a religious document and it didn't predate the act of people becoming sex partners. the legal document is there for business purposes only, so it's not a marriage document it's a business document. this is why i dont think ms. davis should be worried about signing it, since the marriage part was already done when the people fell in love and decided to be dedicated to each other, sexually and financially. the government got involved to make sure the financially part was fair.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

i realize that. i'm just pointing out that you can be married anywhere, just by both people saying they are. government has no say over that. the legal document is not a religious document and it didn't predate the act of people becoming sex partners. the legal document is there for business purposes only, so it's not a marriage document it's a business document. this is why i dont think ms. davis should be worried about signing it, since the marriage part was already done when the people fell in love and decided to be dedicated to each other, sexually and financially. the government got involved to make sure the financially part was fair.

OK, got it.

Its interesting most people think of early America as puritanical.

But, I've read history where the woman first had to prove she could bear children before marriage. Because you pretty much had to have your own "crew" if you were gonna run a farm.

And that most "prairie" couples just moved in together, married themselves, and maybe if a wandering preacher happened by - - only then would they have an official church marriage.

Its pretty funny in the old western movies where the young groom would ride hundreds of miles to find a preacher so he could get married. As if, anyone in those hardships could take the time and energy to do that.

Karma is a B****!

What comes around goes around. That is my belief. People like her do not follow "Jesus" teaching. She acts as if she is God herself.

What happened to free will?

And....How does someone set the stage to break the law in front of "god" and everybody... and not be made an example of?

She's had a lot of brainwashing..... I get that but wow. What a show!

Frankly, I just want anarchy! Im over all the stupid BS.

Cheers

a reply to: Annee

adam would've had to run a long time to get a priest to marry himself to eve.

Kentucky Anti-Gay-Marriage Clerk Kim Davis: Back to Square One
www.nbcnews.com...

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, one of Davis' lawyers, said last week that the case was "back at square one." He has been calling on either the governor (through an executive order) or lawmakers (through legislation) to change the law and take the responsibility of issuing marriage licenses away from county clerks and give it to state government.

In a motion filed Friday in a federal appeals court, Davis' attorneys asked that she be allowed to stop her office from issuing any more marriage licenses until the case is resolved and all possible appeals are exhausted.

I have to wonder, just what good is it really going to do to shift the responsibility from the country clerks to the state government? who's to say that some of those working on the state level won't do the same thing?

but oh yes, let's deny this one little country a gov't service they are entitled to for God knows how long until the case is resolved and all possible appeals are exhausted. I think I'd be starting to look at how much I am paying in county and state taxes about now, breaking it down into a daily figure and coming up with a realistic figure to represent the loss of the service and sending the state and county tax office a bill every day! They've all had more than enough time to come up with a solution outside of screw the citizens on this one!

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

adam would've had to run a long time to get a priest to marry himself to eve.

LOL for sure

I think the courts know if they let this nut win in any way, it will create a landslide of more frivolous lawsuits.

I just don't see them caving to accommodate her.

I could be wrong, but sure hope not.

a reply to: dawnstar

The whole point of the conspiracy is to set precedent.

That's why we are seeing frivolity.

All part of a plan to shut down all current and future resistance.