Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[SandYFan]

What does her marital status have to do with it? Such misogyny.

That's an excellent point. I have no idea. I'll edit.

[falafel]

What does her marital status have to do with it? Such misogyny.

That's an excellent point. I have no idea. I'll edit.

Pelado must have been joking. Kim Davis is married. And her husband isn't pulling any punches.

Joe Davis, who is both the second and fourth husband to the thrice-divorced clerk, said he went out to eat Thursday with the five deputy clerks who agreed to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

...

“To me, Judge Bunning is no different than a judge in high school or out here on the street,” Joe Davis said. He’s a bully.”

He asked another reporter to deliver a message from him to the judge.

“Tell Judge Bunning he’s a butt,” Joe Davis said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim...ng-hes-a-butt/

[SandYFan]

Pelado must have been joking. Kim Davis is married. And her husband isn't pulling any punches.

You can never be too careful.

[Moliere]

Yeah, I saw that. I loved the first reply, however. "McDonald's is to food what pornography is to sex."

Ha, that was a good line.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

Incredible that so many politicians are supporting this woman. Seems like the most irrational religious persecution argument ever.

[Topper]

Embedded Tweet

Incredible that so many politicians are supporting this woman. Seems like the most irrational religious persecution argument ever.

I don't eat pork, but I go to work at a restaurant that serves pork and make certain nobody else may eat pork by refusing to serve pork.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh boy. Judge in Tennessee jumps on the bandwagon and refuses to grant a hetero couple a divorce. Because gay marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...age/?tid=sm_fb

This sounds like solid legal reasoning to me.

“Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism,” he begins sarcastically, “implementation of this apparently new ‘super-federal-judicial’ form of benign and benevolent government, termed ‘krytocracy’ by some and ‘judi-idiocracy’ by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court.”

[Moliere]

Oh boy. Judge in Tennessee jumps on the bandwagon and refuses to grant a hetero couple a divorce. Because gay marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...age/?tid=sm_fb

This sounds like solid legal reasoning to me.

It's weird he needs all that to justify not granting the divorce. All he'd need to do is quote Matthew 19:9. Obviously divorce is against the word of Jesus.

[ERCougar]

10 years ahead of its time:
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/chri...ill-any-p-9645

[Northwestcoug]

10 years ahead of its time:
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/chri...ill-any-p-9645

That's perfect.

[SandYFan]

Optimistic Take alert!

This is one clerk in Kentucky. She was immediately vilified by society and punished by the judicial system.

1. The fact that this is not happening anywhere else in the country is great!

2. The fact that she was not allowed to continue her actions is also great!

We, as a country, are looking pretty good for this issue. Right?

[creekster]

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emmerson

What you really want is consistency according to your own subjective viewpoint. "Lack of consistency" has to be the dumbest, most intellectually lazy way to critique or analyze an issue. Not even worth engaging.

First that's not what Emerson said. He said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. That is a meaningful difference and does not support your categorical and didactic conclusion.

Second, my guess is he probably spelled his name consistently and it has only one 'm.'

Third, your categorical conclusion that lack of consistency is the dumbest most intellectually lazy way to analyze an issue wis itself intellectually lazy and, quite frankly, not even worth engaging on this or any other issue.

Consistency of process, which is, as I see it, what Sandyfan is talking about, is the entire purpose and underpinning of the Constitution. I assume that due process is also something you find dumb and intellectually lazy given that it rests upon the demands of consistency.

[Jeff Lebowski]

First that's not what Emerson said. He said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. That is a meaningful difference and does not support your categorical and didactic conclusion.

Second, my guess is he probably spelled his name consistently and it has only one 'm.'

Good grief. I know the full quote. And thanks for noting my tpyo! Ha. Irony.

Third, your categorical conclusion that lack of consistency is the dumbest most intellectually lazy way to analyze an issue wis itself intellectually lazy and, quite frankly, not even worth engaging on this or any other issue.

Consistency of process, which is, as I see it, what Sandyfan is talking about, is the entire purpose and underpinning of the Constitution. I assume that due process is also something you find dumb and intellectually lazy given that it rests upon the demands of consistency.

What? The “entire purpose and underpinning of the Constitution”? Are you serious? Last I checked, this is just a sports board, not a federal court. Nothing we discuss here is going to threaten the constitutional process.

This particular thread is about gay marriage. It has been noted that a clerk is Kentucky is acting crazy. SandYFan responds with the FaceBook 101 response implying that we have no right to mock the crazy clerk unless we give equal outrage to some judge in California. This is a common and over-used logical fallacy called “tu quoque” (look it up - pretty sure I spelled it correctly!). In other words, rather than discuss the merits of this particular case on the facts, he tries to discredit any criticism of Ms. Davis based on a silly appeal to hypocrisy. I am totally fine if someone starts a thread on the judge in California. Sounds like she is out of line. But it is an entirely different case and nobody is required to give equal outrage to this case (or any other) in order to discuss Kim Davis. So pardon me if I have no interest in trying to meets someone’s shifting and entirely subjective standards of consistency when it comes to selecting what issues I care to debate.

Enjoy the peanuts. I recommend washing them down with a Coke.

[creekster]

Good grief. I know the full quote. And thanks for noting my tpyo! Ha. Irony.



What? The “entire purpose and underpinning of the Constitution”? Are you serious? Last I checked, this is just a sports board, not a federal court. Nothing we discuss here is going to threaten the constitutional process.

This particular thread is about gay marriage. It has been noted that a clerk is Kentucky is acting crazy. SandYFan responds with the FaceBook 101 response implying that we have no right to mock the crazy clerk unless we give equal outrage to some judge in California. This is a common and over-used logical fallacy called “tu quoque” (look it up - pretty sure I spelled it correctly!). In other words, rather than discuss the merits of this particular case on the facts, he tries to discredit any criticism of Ms. Davis based on a silly appeal to hypocrisy. I am totally fine if someone starts a thread on the judge in California. Sounds like she is out of line. But it is an entirely different case and nobody is required to give equal outrage to this case (or any other) in order to discuss Kim Davis. So pardon me if I have no interest in trying to meets someone’s shifting and entirely subjective standards of consistency when it comes to selecting what issues I care to debate.

Enjoy the peanuts. I recommend washing them down with a Coke.

Ah, again with the peanuts reference. This is like your personal Vietnam strategy; declare victory and go home, whether or not you actually win. Look, I don't care about this specific example. But your assertion that consistency is the dumbest way to analyze an issue is a categorical assertion that goes beyond this thread topic (as many of our discussions here do). Consistency is sometimes a very important consideration and is often the paramount consideration. If you think it is dumb to use it here, then you can say so, but to ridicule someone on the grounds that it is ALWAYS dumb and intellectually lazy does not advance the discussion nor add to the stated topic. Moreover, to do so while intentionally misquoting the authority you cite (why leave off the word foolish? It makes all the difference between supporting your position and not supporting it) is at least sloppy and at worst intellectually dishonest.

Now if you want to say that his example is inapplicable because it is "tu quoque" then go ahead. Your indictment of his position in response to my post was much clearer and on point than your original broad-brush fallacy. (btw, I am not sure he was presenting a "tu quoque position, as he was not suggesting the clerk's position was wrong based on her past inconsistent acts, but he was arguing that there is apparent bias in observers; but I am not a logician and am likely wrong about that.) So why not be specific, especially given that you are apparently hoping to tightly focus the discussion on the thread topic?

As to the constitution, who said we were going to undermine it? This sports (and more!) board is all just talk. Nothing we do here ever affects much of anything important. My point is that consistency is, sometimes, the most important factor. And there are important examples that prove this.

I'm OK being in the peanut gallery, btw. I like the cheap seats. My kind of people. it's just that sometimes hyperbole goes too far for me.

[Moliere]

I have no idea what point the monkey is trying to make (I've read his posts above several times and still don't get it) but it's fun to watch him go after JL. Maybe someday I'll be smart enough to follow these spats.