#Login Register


  • 8 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
Home 


Source(s) Claim Gay Couple Demands Marriage Certificate Signed By Kim Davis
09-26-2015, 11:41 PM #1
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
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?

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 12:26 AM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,587 Threads:1,469 Joined:Feb 2011
I think they should let it go. Live, love and be happy.

Life is too short for that sort of bullshit.
09-27-2015, 12:27 AM #3
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
(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?

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 12:34 AM #4
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,587 Threads:1,469 Joined:Feb 2011
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.

İmage
09-27-2015, 12:46 AM #5
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,272 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
Pfft... coffeetime.gif 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.

wonder.gif
09-27-2015, 12:49 AM #6
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
(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.

İmage

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

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 12:56 AM #7
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,587 Threads:1,469 Joined:Feb 2011
Maybe attention whoring, I don't know
09-27-2015, 01:07 AM #8
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
(09-27-2015, 12:46 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Pfft... coffeetime.gif 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.

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 01:12 AM #9
Ama Incognito Anonymous
 
(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, 01:14 AM #10
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
I am gay and that bitch should be on death row!



Only joking.. chuckle.gif You know, some of these queens are so over bearing and caught up in themselves. They are just as bad as these crazy christians that scream and cry that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That woman sounds like a ğkking case and gay men are total bitches when faced against someone like that, so I can see how it came to this. ğck her beliefs, the law states otherwise. chuckle.gif Bloody rednecks..

But As octo said live and let live, ffs.. Burp.
09-27-2015, 02:02 AM #11
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
(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...

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
09-27-2015, 02:16 AM #12
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(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, 02:33 AM #13
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
(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.

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 02:36 AM #14
Zaphod Beeblebrox Member
Posts:46 Threads:4 Joined:Nov 2014
Personally, I find this whole situation to be ridiculous, and both sides are behaving in a belligerent manner.

"You want to see my spaceship?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?" ~Gag Halfrunt
09-27-2015, 03:23 AM #15
Ama Incognito Anonymous
 
(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



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com