Okay, so before people jump on this, I realize that this article is from Breitbart, and has NO other sources noted.

GAY MEN WANT KIM DAVIS BACK IN JAIL

Quote:Two sources close to Kentucky country clerk Kim Davis tell Breitbart News that the gay men whose demand for a marriage license started her on a path to jail for five days are again trying to get her locked up.

These are the men who were seen on video shouting at Davis and demanding she issue them a marriage license in accord with the Supreme Court Obergefell decision that imposed gay marriage on the country. When she refused, Federal judge David Bunning jailed her for five days.

While Davis was in jail, her staff issued a marriage license to the two men, though without her name attached to it. The license was issued in the name of the clerk’s office. The two men were satisfied, as was Judge Bunning and the Governor of the State of Kentucky.

Upon her return, Davis began issuing licenses with “Pursuant to Federal Court Order” affixed. This newest version of Rowan County licenses did not affect the license issue to the two men. Even so, the men are back, saying the license they were so happy with a few weeks ago, is not sufficient They are demanding that Davis issue a new license with her name on it.

If, and I stress, IF, this story is legitimate, I feel that it portrays this particular gay couple ( and possibly the entire movement) in an extremely poor light.

Why?

Because it would indicate that they are not simply satisfied to be able to get married, but that they are bent on punishing this woman for her beliefs.
Regardless of her personal past, political affiliation, or any other factor, this becomes a story about forcing someone to affirm someone else's beliefs regardless of their own.

If the claims in this article turn out to be true (which they may not be), I hope it blows up in their faces.

What do you guys think?

I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

(09-27-2015, 12:26 AM)Octo Wrote:  I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

I agree. I mean, if all they wanted was to get their license from that particular clerk's office, then mission accomplished, right?

They wanted to get married ffs, they should be honeymooning, not going on a crusade. I'm supporting Kim Davis either, just think they're being ridiculous.

Pfft... I don't think I've ever met a mean gay guy.
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.
Christopher Ciccone is Madonna's brother.
At any rate, these guys are behaving more like menopausal woman. Maybe they should look into HRT or something.

(09-27-2015, 12:34 AM)Octo Wrote:  They wanted to get married ffs, they should be honeymooning, not going on a crusade. I'm supporting Kim Davis either, just think they're being ridiculous.

Right? That's why the story, if true, makes we wonder what their real intent was with this whole situation.

Maybe attention whoring, I don't know

(09-27-2015, 12:46 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Pfft... I don't think I've ever met a mean gay guy.
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.
Christopher Ciccone is Madonna's brother.
At any rate, these guys are behaving more like menopausal woman. Maybe they should look into HRT or something.

Yeah, I've never met an outright mean gay dude, but I have definitely met snarky ones.

(09-27-2015, 12:27 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:26 AM)Octo Wrote:  I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

I agree. I mean, if all they wanted was to get their license from that particular clerk's office, then mission accomplished, right?

It has nothing to do with her personally , it just the license to be vaild need to have her name on ( thats the point)
imagine then paying lower taxes , adopting child etc and suddenly there's problem with their license , and suddenly they have to pay alot of money , costing them all life saving or losing a child simply because the altered ( illegaly by kim davis something that court forbid her to do) license is not valid

(09-27-2015, 01:12 AM)Ama Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:27 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:26 AM)Octo Wrote:  I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

I agree. I mean, if all they wanted was to get their license from that particular clerk's office, then mission accomplished, right?

It has nothing to do with her personally , it just the license to be vaild need to have her name on ( thats the point)
imagine then paying lower taxes , adopting child etc and suddenly there's problem with their license , and suddenly they have to pay alot of money , costing them all life saving or losing a child simply because the altered ( illegaly by kim davis something that court forbid her to do) license is not valid

Yes, the license IS valid. The only one claiming it isn't, is Kim Davis. Kentucky law does not require a clerk's signature on the license to be valid but, rather, the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.

So there goes that argument...

(09-27-2015, 02:02 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 01:12 AM)Ama Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:27 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:26 AM)Octo Wrote:  I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

I agree. I mean, if all they wanted was to get their license from that particular clerk's office, then mission accomplished, right?

It has nothing to do with her personally , it just the license to be vaild need to have her name on ( thats the point)
imagine then paying lower taxes , adopting child etc and suddenly there's problem with their license , and suddenly they have to pay alot of money , costing them all life saving or losing a child simply because the altered ( illegaly by kim davis something that court forbid her to do) license is not valid

Yes, the license IS valid. The only one claiming it isn't, is Kim Davis. Kentucky law does not require a clerk's signature on the license to be valid but, rather, the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.

So there goes that argument...

there were 2 times the the validity was in question
1st time while Davis was in jail but "Bunning ruled those licenses were valid and released Davis on the condition that she not interfere with her employees."

and 2nd time when she came back , confiscated the marriage licenses and replaced them new licenses say they were issued not under the authority of the county clerk, but “pursuant to federal court order”.

because of that the validity of new licenses is questionable

(09-27-2015, 02:16 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 02:02 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 01:12 AM)Ama Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:27 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 12:26 AM)Octo Wrote:  I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.

I agree. I mean, if all they wanted was to get their license from that particular clerk's office, then mission accomplished, right?

It has nothing to do with her personally , it just the license to be vaild need to have her name on ( thats the point)
imagine then paying lower taxes , adopting child etc and suddenly there's problem with their license , and suddenly they have to pay alot of money , costing them all life saving or losing a child simply because the altered ( illegaly by kim davis something that court forbid her to do) license is not valid

Yes, the license IS valid. The only one claiming it isn't, is Kim Davis. Kentucky law does not require a clerk's signature on the license to be valid but, rather, the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.

So there goes that argument...

there were 2 times the the validity was in question
1st time while Davis was in jail but "Bunning ruled those licenses were valid and released Davis on the condition that she not interfere with her employees."

and 2nd time when she came back , confiscated the marriage licenses and replaced them new licenses say they were issued not under the authority of the county clerk, but “pursuant to federal court order”.

because of that the validity of new licenses is questionable

The validity of the licenses is recognized by the state of Kentucky. Again, the only person arguing whether they are valid, is Kim Davis (unless of course, you have a source showing otherwise).

The U.S. Attorney General has only been asked to affirm the validity (which, we know, she will).
So, the validity of the license is not questionable, according to the law.

Based on that, the only beef these people have with her is that SHE is refusing to acknowledge them as legal, which is stupid, because she cannot change the fact that they were issued in accordance with the law.

Personally, I find this whole situation to be ridiculous, and both sides are behaving in a belligerent manner.

(09-27-2015, 02:33 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  The validity of the licenses is recognized by the state of Kentucky. Again, the only person arguing whether they are valid, is Kim Davis (unless of course, you have a source showing otherwise).

The U.S. Attorney General has only been asked to affirm the validity (which, we know, she will).
So, the validity of the license is not questionable, according to the law.

Based on that, the only beef these people have with her is that SHE is refusing to acknowledge them as legal, which is stupid, because she cannot change the fact that they were issued in accordance with the law.

"In the filing on Friday, Hughes said he expected “there will be other parties” to request the federal court to review the validity of the altered licenses.

Hughes added: “Again, Mr. Mason’s concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses, and he is trying to follow the court’s mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms and only with initials and only as notarized, which in the last example I have seen are not even notarized.”

source :
http://wfpl.org/kim-davis-may-interferin...rney-says/

site gets updated and they include Mr. Mansons's status report

(09-27-2015, 03:23 AM)Ama Wrote:  

(09-27-2015, 02:33 AM)Zaphod Beeblebrox Wrote:  The validity of the licenses is recognized by the state of Kentucky. Again, the only person arguing whether they are valid, is Kim Davis (unless of course, you have a source showing otherwise).

The U.S. Attorney General has only been asked to affirm the validity (which, we know, she will).
So, the validity of the license is not questionable, according to the law.

Based on that, the only beef these people have with her is that SHE is refusing to acknowledge them as legal, which is stupid, because she cannot change the fact that they were issued in accordance with the law.

"In the filing on Friday, Hughes said he expected “there will be other parties” to request the federal court to review the validity of the altered licenses.

Hughes added: “Again, Mr. Mason’s concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses, and he is trying to follow the court’s mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms and only with initials and only as notarized, which in the last example I have seen are not even notarized.”

source :
http://wfpl.org/kim-davis-may-interferin...rney-says/

site gets updated and they include Mr. Mansons's status report

Fair enough. If some haven't even been notarized, that could call their validity into question.
I'll wager that this will become yet another high profile case that mires the public in pointless arguments for months; especially if the MSM decides to run with it (and you know they will).