Did he have much to say on her multiple divorces? The Catholic church ain’t too keen on that.
Who will rid us of this turbulent clerk?
Welp, since you think so, I guess we should only use words you approve of?
Must I quote Alexander Tyler to you blasted hippies?
Apparently! (Google says) “Tytler”…?
yeah, yeah I was going by snopes.
Strong in her convictim.
And why is being against gay marriage homophobic?
Isn’t that ad hominem?
What’s next?
So there are a lot of reasons, but I’ll point out some tactical ones.
Taxes.
Inheritance.
Spousal support.
Not supporting gay marriage is saying, “you don’t get these benefits, because you are gay”.
Being against gay marriage is unjustifiable from any secular standpoint, and I doubt you can prove me wrong.
Her conviction is to deny people their constitutional rights. Her right to religion in no way gives her a free pass to try and prevent gay people from getting married, no matter how much she disapproves of them.
Think of it this way: what if an muslim working at the DMV decided to stop issuing driver’s licenses to women? Is that misogynistic? Yes. Likewise with gay marriage. Same situation: My religion says you can’t do this legal thing, and as a government worker, I’ll stop you from doing this thing you’re entitled to.
If she had a strong conviction and an ounce of sense, then she’d have resigned, instead of deciding to break the law.
-
Because it’s prejudicial against those in homosexual relationships.
-
No.
3:
Actually, lots of conservatives would be happy for all these rights to be extended – and not just to those in sexual relationships, but to others too (eg. two unmarried sisters who live together).
On the other hand, I seem to remember that they have a tendency to count “lapsed Catholics” along in that number. Can’t find a reference for it now, though…
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Pope’s side of the story matters at this point. He met with her. That says all we need to know.
It sucks, I like this Pope, and I thought he was attempting to be progressive on same sex relationships.
But nup. Same old shit.
That is precisely what they do. And it’s a total pain in the arse impossible getting yourself removed from the list once you’re in.
Unless you want to be excommunicated. But that’s a ridiculous process on its own.
I always thought the gushing comments about the pope from otherwise progressive folks had a touch of Stockhom syndrome about it - after a few decades of full on hate crime from the last couple, this one suddenly seems like sweetness and light. But still hating on anyone who doesn’t love or have sex in an approved manner.
Well it does make things a little different when the law changes after she has been elected. When a moral and legal norm is simply reversed overnight, we should perhaps extend a little less vitriol toward those who actually believe that the old law was there for a reason. We can’t all be Obama and evolve on command.
I think those who keep saying that Davis should “do her job” have a legitimate point. But I wonder whether they would be making so much noise if it had been an official illegally giving certificates to SS couples before the supreme court decision. It’s a bit sad if we’re only big on obeying the law when we like the law.
#NotAllAtheists?
Oh my GOD, what is that fucking STINK suddenly? It’s like some heartless, brain-dead corpse is stalking around in here. Quick, open the windows, let in some air, open the door, chase it out!
Like I said, if she had an ounce of sense along with her strong conviction, she’d resign. Nobody’s forcing her to sign marriage certificates. It’s only contingent as part of her duties as the county clerk. If being the county clerk is morally repugnant to her now, then she ought to step down. Like a decent person with strong convictions.
Instead she decided to not step down, and not do her job, while in the process denying people their rights. If she’s so ossified as to not do her job after one SCOTUS decision, she should just step down, since she can’t fulfill her duties anymore.