Florida Counties End Courthouse Weddings To Avoid Marrying Gays
[su_right_ad]If you want to get married at the Duval (pictured), Baker or Clay county courthouses, you will no longer be able to, because marriages will no longer be performed there.
These counties’ decision to end the long-standing tradition of courthouse wedding ceremonies is due, at least in part, to the continued debate over same-sex marriage in Florida against the backdrop of conservative Christianity. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle could rule any day and make gay marriage legal across the state.
If same-sex marriage is allowed, Duval Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, Clay Clerk Tara Green and Baker Clerk Stacie Harvey will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But to avoid performing ceremonies for them, these clerks have decided to end all courthouse weddings.
The clerks said multiple factors contributed to the decision to end courthouse weddings, with gay marriage being just one of them. And they now said the new policies will take effect no matter what the courts decide about gay marriage.
Fussell says the decision came after a series of discussion with members of his staff who currently officiate wedding ceremonies. None of them, including Fussell, felt comfortable doing gay weddings so they decided to end the practice all together, he said.
“It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn’t be any discrimination,” Fussell said. “The easiest way is to not do them at all.”…
Clerks of courts in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties in the Panhandle also made similar announcements that they were ending courthouse ceremonies.[su_csky_ad]
whatthe46 January 1st, 2015 at 9:17 pm
that’s just so fk’n petty and disgusting. i just don’t know what else to add at this point. people are just so hateful and spiteful. question i have is, why would ANY gay person in this country, vote repuke, is beyond me.
granpa.usthai January 1st, 2015 at 9:32 pm
oh boy, if you were married before this date, it’s legally binding -property settlement at divorces, etc. -Can’t wait til the first objections to the ‘courts’ rulings on that. Ought to be a doozie.
‘we don’t have the authority to put you into the marriage
-only to get you out?
Suzanne McFly January 1st, 2015 at 9:42 pm
North Florida, home to bigots, racists, and sexists and with a huge non-taxed church on every corner. Go there and be judged by inbreds.
granpa.usthai January 1st, 2015 at 10:15 pm
would caution about breathing while black anywhere in the state.
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2015 at 10:35 am
I couldn’t believe how bad it was, I thought Mississippi would of been worse than Florida but they are actually very similar.
Obewon January 1st, 2015 at 10:34 pm
These constitutional illiterates won’t ever figure out their own conservative majority SCOTUS proved xenophobic laws violated the 10th and other amendments. That’s why equal marriage is the law in 31+ states in 2015!
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:26 am
The fun part is equality is coming slowly, state by state, prolonging the agony of those who see they are on the wrong side of history.
The un-fun part is it is taking too damned long and gays have had to wait too damned long and deserve credit for being as patient and peaceful as they’ve been as the struggle has gone on all these years.
But at least we get to see conservatives writhe about in agony for a while longer like salted slugs……
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2015 at 10:36 am
They think the Constitution has one Amendment, the 2nd one and that’s it.
bpollen January 1st, 2015 at 11:59 pm
Hmmm… a new definition of non-discrimination. If we can’t discriminate against a specific group, we’ll deny everybody. Can you smell the coming lawsuits? I can.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:24 am
my thoughts exactly.
Foundryman January 1st, 2015 at 11:59 pm
jesus..these bigots are absolutely relentless aren’t they???.
Why can’t they just leave people live their f**king lives???….
It just really makes you sick…
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:24 am
i’m just as angry about it as you are.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:26 am
In 2008, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage, saying that marriage was between one man and one woman. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize while still holding that belief. If these people in Florida are bigots, then Barack Obama was a bigot in 2008.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 12:36 am
So what!!.. What the hell does that have to do with what they are doing in Fla??
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:48 am
It demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of anyone who gave Obama a pass in 2008 but now calls these Floridians bigots. These people are adhering to the same belief that Obama professed in 2008, namely, that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. If that belief makes someone a bigot, then Obama was a bigot in 2008.
DieselJohnson January 2nd, 2015 at 12:54 am
This article is not about Obama.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:01 am
This article is about a principle. Obama violated that principle in 2008 by opposing gay marriage. The complaints from liberals were very muted. Today the same liberals are getting all incensed about people in Florida who are adhering to the same principle that Obama advocated in 2008. The stench of hypocrisy is sickening.
DieselJohnson January 2nd, 2015 at 1:07 am
I saw many complaints about Obama’s opposition of gay marriage in 2008.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:11 am
Yeah, but nobody called him a bigot. Nobody said he was hateful or spiteful. All of those words have been used here to describe these Floridians.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:33 am
How would you describe someone using their own religious beliefs in the operation of a public facility like a courthouse?
I’m not going to marry you because it’s against my religion…What the hell is that if not bigotry?
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:42 am
Would it be any less bigoted if religion were not the reason? For example, what if the elected official were a power lifter who didn’t like “limp-wristed pretty boys”? It’s not really about religion, is it?
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:48 am
No it wouldn’t be about about religion, but it would still be discrimination, and people have protected rights against discrimination…
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:53 am
We are talking about something the courts have found to be legal…So if some oiled up muscle bound judge didn’t like ‘limp wristed pretty boys”…to bad,,,that’s his problem, he still has to do his job.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 2:11 am
i don’t know. some “christians” think GOD only makes perfect people and anyone with imperfections, is, well whatever.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:50 am
A contract between two consenting adults has nothing to do with religion.
To the state, marriage is simply a legal contract between two adults.
Could you please address the equality issue of marriage for gays instead of continually bringing up other issues instead?
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 3:02 am
A couple of my friends are lesbians in long-term, committed relationships. If they want to get married, I’m fine with that. My son and daughter both got married recently. Both marriages were in non-religious settings. I’m fine with that, too. I was raised Protestant and married a Catholic. Our son was raised Catholic and married a Jew. I’m fine with all of that. But there was a time when some of those things would have bothered me. So I am reluctant to call others bigots. I think it’s fine to question people’s actions and beliefs. I just don’t like the name calling. Someday the next generation is going to look back at some of our current beliefs and we will look like Neanderthals to them. People evolve in different ways at different times. Patience is a virtue.
It’s 3 am where I live, and I am going to bed. Ciao.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 3:06 am
It was fine for you to evolve on the issue, but not ok for Obama to do the same thing you did?
Then you ask for others to be consistent?
This is very confusing.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 1:49 am
ask him an easier question because apparently that one keeps going over his head.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:53 am
When you see someone continually avoiding the topic, the thing to do is not take the distraction bait (because people like that never run out of distractions) and steer them back to the topic at hand.
Continually ducking the topic, in poi-lice work, is known as a “clue.”
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:22 am
You yourself seem to be trying to have it both ways.
On one hand, you seem to be saying Obama is a bigot for his opinion over 6 years ago but don’t seem willing to say the same thing about these people in Florida regarding their opinion in 2015.
Yet you call on others to be consistent while failing to be consistent.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:46 am
I would not call Obama a bigot, and I would not call these Floridians bigots. I have no objection to civil unions for committed couples, but I don’t think the state should be in the marriage business. I would like to see the states stop calling what they do “marriage”. It is a package of legal rights. The word “marriage” has too much baggage. Let the churches perform marriage ceremonies for whomever they wish. Legal rights are another matter and should be given a different name (e.g. civil union) to emphasize the separation of church and state. These Floridians may be onto something. Taking “marriage” out of the courthouse seems like a good idea. I would argue that they didn’t go far enough. They need to put civil unions in its place, and offer civil unions to all committed couples as a package of legal rights that have no relationship to any particular religion or deity.
Just to be clear, I am saying that ALL couples (gay/lesbian/straight) would get a civil union at the courthouse and (optionally) a marriage ceremony at a church. Complete separation of church and state, with different terminology.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:58 am
Marriage is nothing more than a contract recognized by the state.
The state allows churches to perform them, and in other posts you seem opposed to churches doing government work, or something, yet here you seem to endorse the idea.
Are you really clear on what you think on this one?
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 12:19 pm
So, you’re saying something called ‘marriage’ should carry no legal rights and the government should have nothing to do with it. It should be strictly a religious ritual. If you want a legally binding contract between two people it will be called anything but ‘marriage’. And the reason is the term ‘marriage’ is already taken, and we must protect the sanctity of the word.
Fine, I’m good with that, but just don’t come crying when the majority of people (everyone) are no longer getting ‘married’ and instead are signing a legal document called ______________.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:41 pm
I’m not naïve. I know that it has virtually zero chance of happening. But as a database developer, I am trained to classify separate entities and their separate attributes. We are clearly dealing with two separate entities that have, for historical reasons, been treated as a single entity.
What I propose is that a couple visits a courthouse to get a legal contract. For the sake of argument, let’s call it a “legal union”. This contract has an effective date. The couple can then say that they were “legally united” on that date.
On the same day, or a different day, the couple can enter a religious institution and enter into a religious covenant called “marriage”. This covenant has its own effective date, but has no legal standing whatsoever.
The legal contract and the religious covenant are completely separate things that happen at different times, presided over by different officials.
A couple can be legally united, religiously married, or both. The state does not recognize or keep records of the religious covenant. The church does not need permission from the state to perform the religious ceremony, because it has no legal consequences.
A wise man once said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s”. That sounds like an explicit endorsement of the separation of church and state.
As things currently stand, religious officials are conducting ceremonies which have legal effect. We are all accustomed to it, so it seems normal. But when you think about it, this practice is bizarre in a country that claims to have separation of church and state. A minister shouldn’t need a license to perform a religious ceremony, and a religious ceremony should not have legal consequences.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:00 pm
“As things currently stand, religious officials are conducting ceremonies which have legal effect”…
Yes, but aren’t we are talking about a county courthouse refusing to even provide the legal document here?
We’re all for “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars” but the question here is, shouldn’t Caesar be required to have his doors open?
Does the High Priest have the right to close Caesars doors?
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:16 pm
If the ceremony being performed at the courthouse were purely a legal one, with no religious elements such as mentioning God, then I would be in complete agreement. As long as the legal official is not being required to speak of religious aspects while performing his official legal duties, then there would be no conflict. However, if the official is being required to say things like “In the sight of God” or “so help you God”, then they would have grounds for objecting.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 1:10 am
so, you think this is right? what’s going on? he realized it wasn’t right and so he corrected that, that’s not hypocrisy.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:17 am
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that people were patient with Obama and didn’t call him a bigot. It’s only been a few years since he “evolved”. Is it realistic to think that everybody on the planet should evolve in lock step, and if they don’t, they deserve contempt? If GW Bush had evolved in 2007 while still in office, would you have called Obama a bigot when he stated in 2008 that he was opposed to gay marriage?
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:31 am
You right wingers spend way to much time living in the past. If you’d just stay calm and live your life and not try to control everybody else you be much happier. You worry about your own soul, stop forcing your religious beliefs on others.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:35 am
That’s rich. All you liberals ever do is try to force your beliefs on others. Why don’t you take your own advice and “just stay calm and live your life and not try to control everybody else”?
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 1:48 am
you seriously give me migranes. repukes are forever trying to force their beliefs (christian or whatever) on everyone else. from what a woman can do with her own body, to who can get married. what business is it of yours? how does it affect your life? and what are these conservative, christian, repukes doing here, they are saying we won’t allow anyone to marry in our courts because “gay.”
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:08 am
Let’s back up a step. Why is the state performing and regulating marriages in the first place? In olden times, before separation of church and state, it made sense. But in modern times, why is the state in the marriage business? Why not let each church decide who it will and will not marry, and let the state offer a package of legal rights to committed couples without calling it a marriage?
The state has no business regulating the services performed by churches. The church has no business regulating the types of legal recognitions offered by the state. When the same word “marriage” is used by both the church and the state, it causes people to regard these separate events as one and the same. The churches aren’t going to relinquish use of the word “marriage”, so why doesn’t the state pick a different word and eliminate all references to God in civil unions?
Marriage is the only religious observance that is regulated by the state, with the possible exception of funerals. The separation of church and state is insufficient. Increase the separation by using a different word for the package of legal rights and eliminating references to God from the legal stuff.
Your thoughts?
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 2:35 am
marriage isn’t only a religious observance. if that’s the case, then what about non-believers? what of 2 people who were raised in different religions? not being of the same fate doesn’t mean that the two shouldn’t be able to marry unless one changes their religion right?
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:52 am
You missed my point. Marriage means many things to different people. I am suggesting that it’s time to clarify the terminology. The state should not offer “marriages” to any couple. Instead, the package of legal rights offered by the state to committed couples should be called something else (e.g. “civil union”). Let the churches define what “marriage” means. What the state offers should be called something else. It’s hard to change the language, but a lot of the angst is due to differing definitions.
Consider the difference between the terms “illegal alien” and “undocumented immigrant”. Terminology affects perceptions.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 3:04 am
You’re hung up on labels and seem opposed to allowing gays to have the same thing heteros have.
What you are proposing is highly unlikely, yet we see marriage equality spreading across the nation from sea to shining sea.
Why not just agree that granting equality to gays is a good thing?
Then you don’t need all these side issues.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:12 am
how many meanings are there? and that’s just ridiculous to suggest that if a person isn’t religious or even if they are and don’t want to get married in a church, that they are somehow, less than or that their marriage won’t be a blessed one, therefore shouldn’t be recognized as one. just like a “right” (wrong), want to dictate what and how a person should live their lives, because it suits you. that, and there you are with your labels.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:20 am
and i will ask you one last time. please explain why on earth is it a problem for you in the least. if a church won’t marry a same sex couple and the courts won’t then what? if a couple is interracial and they are not religious and a court won’t marry them then what?
they have a constitutional right. these people need not be working for the state if they cannot follow the rights given constitutionally. they are free to find another job. and its sad because you are ok with a “civil union” just don’t call yourselves a married couple. what makes you think you’re better than them?
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 3:02 am
The reason the state recognizes the particular contract of marriage is because the state has long recognized that society benefits from the stability provided by marriage and two-parent families.
Your proposal seems rather complicated compared to simply allowing gays the same rights heteros have had for centuries.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 6:58 am
Marriage is the only religious observance that is regulated by the state, with the possible exception of funerals.
_______
Marriage is a legal contract.
It is regulated by the states like all contracts.
If it becomes a religious observance and not a civil contract it will have no legal implications.
Will the Church also terminate the contract, (divorce)??
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 9:47 am
For centuries marriage has been a legal contract AND a religious ceremony. Most of the blow-back from religious people is because they think the term “marriage” is being redefined. So just use a different term for the legal contract. Don’t call it a marriage. Call it something else. Let the churches define the term “marriage” in whatever way they wish. But that’s not good enough, because the real agenda is to force everyone to accept a new religious meaning for marriage. The real agenda is to force everyone to say “God supports gay marriage”. Liberals won’t stop when everyone has equal legal rights. They want to redefine the term for churches too. That’s why no alternative name for the legal contract will ever be acceptable.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and tolerance, then you must be willing to permit others to hold beliefs that are different from your own. You do not use the power of the state to compel a certain set of beliefs. That’s why reciting the Pledge is optional.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 9:55 am
Marriage has always been redefined.
We celebrate the wisdom of King Solomon, yet he had a harem. Abraham had two wives. Brigham Young, master builder of the Mormon Church — which actively opposes gay marriage — had a total of 19 wives.
We changed the definition of marriage so that it no longer meant that a woman went from being her father’s property to being her husband’s property and every marriage was implicated.
And the Churches are free to define marriage anyway they want, but that has nothing to do with the legal contract.
And belief in the the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and tolerance is EXACTLY why I support marriage equality.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 10:11 am
A friend of mine lost both of her parents while still in high school. Her dad’s two sisters volunteered to take care of my friend and her four younger siblings. In every way that matters, these two aunts acted as parents to these children. But in the eyes of the state, they were just two women living in the same house. They didn’t get the same legal rights as a married couple, yet they were shouldering all of the same responsibilities.
People frequently make the mistake of thinking that all couples are romantically or sexually involved. We talk about gay, lesbian, and straight, but forget about “non-sexual” partnerships. The word “marriage” is problematic in this regard. In fact, the state would normally prohibit a “marriage” of two siblings, at least if they were of the same sex. Why should two sisters who are raising five children not enjoy the same legal rights as a married lesbian couple? Why isn’t there a legal contract to fit this case? This is an example of how the word “marriage” just confuses the legal contract. We should call the legal contract something else and make it broad enough to cover couples who are not romantically or sexually involved, but are nonetheless committed in some important way, such as being jointly committed to raising a family of five orphans.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 10:27 am
They didn’t get the same legal rights as a married couple, yet they were shouldering all of the same responsibilities.
________
That is irrelevant. Were they seeking the status of marriage??
What is the difference between the heterosexual and the homosexual couple?
As for; Why isn’t there a legal contract to fit this case?
There is. It is called Kinship care, and power of attorney.
Again, churches are free to call anything anything they want, it is not binding legally.
If you want to abandon the entire thing and create a system whereby what we now know as marriage, is put solely in the civil realm, and churches can do whatever they want, fine.
As it stands, a religious marriage without a license is not valid, and the church can not dissolve a marriage and distribute property.
(Unless you want Sharia).
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 10:54 am
“If you want to abandon the entire thing and create a system whereby what we now know as marriage, is put solely in the civil realm, and churches can do whatever they want, fine.”
That’s exactly what I’m advocating.
“As it stands, a religious marriage without a license is not valid, and the church can not dissolve a marriage and distribute property.”
I noticed that you used the adjective “religious” before “marriage”, but you neglected to use the adjective “legally” before “valid”. A religious marriage is certainly valid in a religious context. If we had two separate words for the legal and religious constructs, then we wouldn’t need to use these adjectives. Whenever the adjectives are omitted, people get their hackles up. If we were more precise in our use of language, we would have fewer disagreements.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 11:25 am
Ultimately, what adjectives are used matters very little.
My only point is marriage equality, whether or not you call it marriage, and whether or not any particular church recognizes it.
Dwendt44 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:25 pm
To be clear, christianity didn’t invent marriage. It was around long before the bible was written. The government regulating marriage has it’s good points. In the bible, if a man wanted out, he could walk away with no ramifications, not so the woman. There are solid and reasonable reasons why marriage, divorce, and death are regulated, as well as other ‘religious’ practices.(no more human sacrifices).
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:47 pm
If “legal unions” and “religious marriages” are treated as separate things, then only the legal unions convey legal rights and legal protections. So the state can regulate legal unions and people will be protected from legal harm.
Conversely, if a religious marriage has no legal effect, then walking away from a religious marriage is only a problem in the religious realm.
The result is that we attain a more complete separation of church and state, religious affairs and legal affairs. The state regulates all legal affairs related to people in committed relationships, and the churches regulate the religious affairs of people in committed relationships.
What’s not to like?
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:10 pm
I really can’t believe you cannot see the problems with that. What happens when someone gets “married” in the church then years later ‘legally unites” with someone else down at the courthouse?
Which one is binding?
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:21 pm
The legal agreement is legally binding. The religious ceremony has no legal effect.
Let’s say that a group of people move into the wilderness and start a commune. They build a church and conduct their own religious ceremonies, including marriages. Years later, one of these married couples emerges from the wilderness. Their religious marriage might have validity in the eyes of God and their fellow church members, but it has no legal significance. If they want to file a tax return as “married, filing jointly”, they need to make a trip to the courthouse.
rg9rts January 2nd, 2015 at 5:07 am
don’t waste time on trolls
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:20 am
Please explain why you don’t think gays should have the same rights everyone else has.
The Supreme Court has already ruled circa 1965 in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right given to all that is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
So please explain why you don’t think gays should have the same rights as everyone else (but gimme a few minutes to get some popcorn going – this should be fun).
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:36 am
I can’t explain that because I don’t believe that.
My biggest beef with liberals is their incessant efforts to legislate charity. If you guys want to help out a neighbor in need, go for it. I am all in favor of charity and have personally contributed a lot of time and some money to several charities. But please don’t enshrine your belief in Christian charity into law. The government has no business enforcing religious requirements to provide charity to individual people in need. That violates separation of church and state. Tax money should be used for things that benefit everyone, such as roads, bridges, parks, and other infrastructure. Forcing me to provide money that is directly handed to another citizen is not a legitimate function of government. Liberals support this practice because they were raised to believe in Christian charity, but lack faith in the charity of their fellow citizens. Therefore, they enact legislation to compel their fellow citizens to comply with what amounts to Christian religious obligations.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:46 am
How is legislating marriage equality legislating charity?
I get your point on charity, do not agree with it but that’s a whole separate issue.
Instead of constantly bringing up other issues, how about speaking to the one at hand – marriage equality?
Dwendt44 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Please don’t equate ‘charity’ with ‘christian’. While they may overlap to a degree, being a christian isn’t necessary in order to be charitable. They are two different things. Many of the outspoken ‘christians’ of today are NOT very charitable at all.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:27 pm
You’re right in theory. But in practice, they are pretty much interchangeable. Years ago, most families attended church where they were taught to help those less fortunate. Today many people (myself included) do not belong to a church or attend services, but they carry within them a sense of duty to their fellow man. That’s all well and good. But liberals are not content to allow each person to follow his own conscience. Liberals want to legislate charity in the form of welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, home heating assistance, WIC, EBT cards, and a host of other programs that use the power of the state to take hard-earned money out of my pocket and give it directly to other people. The liberals who created these programs have legislated charity and made it compulsory, and time and time again they have justified it by telling conservatives that it is what Jesus would want us to do. Time and time again liberals have said that religious people are selfish hypocrites if they don’t support these programs. But Jesus never advocated compulsory charity. Quite the opposite. It’s not charity if the government can confiscate it.
Liberals constantly justify these programs by making references to Jesus and the Bible, in an effort to convince conservatives to support the programs. So just who is equating “charity’ and ‘Christian’? I’ll stop equating them when Liberals stop using references to Christianity to justify these charity programs.
Dwendt44 January 2nd, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Government programs that help the poor and/or needy are a good thing to do. It’s only referenced as ‘christian or ’cause jesus wants it’ to convince those that think only christians deserve charity or that people aren’t christian or religious enough to help themselves.
If one needs to be TAUGHT to be charitable as adults, it’s a sign of bad parenting. People generally are naturally willing to help out others. I don’t want money taken out of my pocket for wars we don’t need to get involved in, or to cover the corporate welfare common these days, by I pay my taxes like everyone else because it’s fungible, and some of it helps those that need help because it’s the right thing to do.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 12:55 pm
“it’s the right thing to do” is a lame justification. It basically means “Because I said so”. When you say this, you are imposing your values on others.
Keep your liberal hands out of my pockets and let me decide when, how much, and to whom I give my hard-earned money. Raising taxes for roads, bridges, and infrastructure is a legitimate function of government. Confiscating money and handing it to people like my uncle, who has been an able-bodied moocher all of his life, is NOT a legitimate function of government. If given the choice, I would rather see my money going to STEM education programs and college assistance for people who maintain a reasonable GPA. But liberals don’t want me to have that choice, because they think they know better how to spend my money.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Years ago, most families attended church where they were taught to help those less fortunate.
______
Today, many people do NOT go to church and are taught to help those less fortunate from their family and friends.
Liberals want to government to provide the safety net for when charity fails, as it often does,
They also believe that government serves a referee, to level the playing field of opportunity.
Conservatives want to take the money out of THEIR pockets, and put it directly into the hands of their “betters” with the promise that it will trickle down.
There is a reason that Mohandas Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:11 pm
You have just provided strong evidence for my previous assertion that liberals want to legislate charity. You can call it a “safety net”, but that’s just a euphemism for “helping the needy”.
I am a workaholic. I have friends and relatives who work a lot less and spend a lot of time fishing. It’s a free country and I have no problem with that. But at the end of the year, if their earnings fall below a certain level, you liberals think that these folks deserve a share of my earnings. You automatically assume that they are incapable of earning more money. Your assumptions are invalid, and you have no respect for private property.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 1:27 pm
You have just provided strong evidence for my previous assertion that liberals want to legislate charity.
______
No I did not.
I just provided strong evidence for my previous assertion that liberals want to legislate the priorities of society.
Charity is a very different thing entirely and is always dependent upon the mood of the giver.
Was EMTALA legislating charity?
“if their earnings fall below a certain level, you liberals think that these folks deserve a share of my earnings…”
________
That’s hooey.
We liberals believe that when people (many of whom work as hard as you), lose their job because of health, poor management, or other things that are beyond their control, that they should not become destitute while recovering.
We believe that people who work 2 or 3 jobs should not have to decide between food or shelter just because business has decided that it’s more profitable to pay sweatshop labor in China.
We believe that we should not have to return to the days of grinding poverty where Little Johnny has to drop out of the 5th grade because Dad got his legs crushed in a machine, or
Grandma got sick, and everyone got paid in company script that could be used only in the company stores.
It would appear that you conservatives value money made from money over money made from from hard work and innovation, and believe that the economy is casino where the House ALWAYS wins.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:43 pm
“hard work and innovation”
I make my living as a self-employed software developer. Hard work and innovation are what I do every day, all day. Safety nets would be fine if it stopped at that. But Democrats have discovered that more benefits = votes, so they have become the “party of yes”.
Personally, I’m proud to be a member of the “party of no”, as in “no benefits” for able-bodied people who are too lazy to learn new skills or perform dirty jobs. Liberals are always saying that we need immigrants to do “the jobs that Americans won’t do”. That is a tacit admission that many Americans are turning down gainful employment in favor of government bennies.
I’ll wear the “party of no” label as a badge of honor. The welfare state is not sustainable. Can’t keep saying yes to everybody’s benefit requests. If you want “hard work and innovation”, then stop making it so easy for people to coast along. Necessity is the mother of invention.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 1:54 pm
We ALL work hard.
And Republicans have discovered that pandering to the “I deserve MY benefits, but HE doesn’t gets votes.
And able-bodied people who are too lazy to learn new skills or perform dirty jobs don’t get benefits, but the billionaires do.
I am proud to be a member of the party that built the hard working middle class that became the envy of the world until the supply siders dismantled it.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:42 pm
“We ALL work hard.”
Demonstrably false. I taught evening classes in computer programming and later was advisor to an engineering/robotics club at my local high school. Some of the students really wanted to learn. Sadly, the majority lacked the self-discipline necessary to learn new concepts, and just wanted to play around with things that provided instant gratification. These kids are not being taught the skills needed to succeed. I live in a rural, economically-depressed area. Education is not a big priority for a lot of folks. A clerk at the local supermarket me that if it weren’t for food stamps, they’d have to shut the place down. The contractor who built my office addition was routinely waiting hours for his workers on Monday mornings. Getting people to show up for work is a major problem. Don’t tell me we ALL work hard. If you hang out in a university environment or professional workplace, then you are probably surrounded by high achievers. You need to get out more.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Please. That’s what we ALL say.
I was a nurse for 30 years, and got my masters in bio-chem.
My husband is a physician from India who came here with $20.00, (because the Indian government did not allow you take much out of the country and his parents were opposed to his leaving).
So what?
We both work in a inner city hospital and in a hospital in a small steel mill/mining town.
It has been the poor people who worked their tails off and have been spat out since the Reagan years that have played a big role in our becoming ever more liberal.
Meanwhile, watch the millionaire and billionaire traders who belong to the Wall Street fraternity Kappa Beta Phi: an exclusive club of financial tycoons kept secret for eight decades, until Roose managed to infiltrate it. What he found was a roomful of swaggering billionaires gorging on foie gras, chanting Latin – ‘dum vivamus edimus et biberimus’ (while we live, we eat and drink) – and joking about the financial crisis. In the meantime, the new recruits, or ‘neophytes’, were forced to dress in drag and sing songs such as ‘Bailout King’, a parody of ABBA’s ‘Dancing Queen’.stole their pensions and call themselves the “Bailout Kings”.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 3:15 pm
The two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe that hard work should be incentivized and rewarded. I am not in favor of anybody getting a free ride. But if I work crazy hours and make big sacrifices to develop a new product, and the product helps people, and lots of people buy it, then it really infuriates me that liberals automatically assume that I somehow stole that wealth from others and don’t have a right to decide how and where to spend it. You people are killing the spirit of entrepreneurism. Why bother busting your butt to innovate and contribute to society? If you’re successful, you will be vilified and robbed. Liberals have equated wealth with evil for so long that they have lost all credibility. Sloppy thinking. Pandering. I am really sick of what you folks call liberalism. Thomas Jefferson was a true liberal who believed in allowing people as much personal freedom as possible. You so-called liberals want to enslave people. Your goals may be noble, but your methods are detestable. Thomas Jefferson would vomit if he could see the welfare state you guys have created.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 3:25 pm
The two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe that hard work should be incentivized and rewarded
______
Almost EVERYBODY does.
That sentiment is not special or unique.
Liberals have NEVER equated wealth with evil. They equate corporations or individuals using their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.
. Thomas Jefferson was a true liberal who believed in allowing people as much personal freedom as possible.
_____
I agree, and he would be appalled at YOU conservatives today.
As Adam Smith said;
Our merchants and masters complain
much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the
sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits.
They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They
complain only of those of other people.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117
And ;
“But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages,
rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the
contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.”
Adam Smith, Wealth of nations pp213
But you guys have thrown Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism over for the Mother of Nihilism, Ayn Rand.
I think you would be happiest if we were a 3rd world country, where labor is really cheap.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 3:48 pm
I am planning to begin marketing a new product (electronic test equipment) later this year. If sales are strong, I will need help with electronic assembly tasks. The going rate for that type of work, in my area, is $10/hr. There was a student in the robotics club who loved to solder and he was good at it. I would love to give that kid, or someone like him, a full-time job at $15 to $20 per hour. The cost of goods will be about 50% of the selling price, so there should be an adequate margin. Many products have intense pricing pressure due to competition. My product will be unique, so I should be able to afford to pay a higher wage. I taught those classes because I hate too see so many of my kids’ classmates failing to realize their potential. I will teach anything I know to anyone who wants to work for me to help them achieve their potential. If I pay them a great wage, then they are more likely to stay and that’s a win-win. It’s hard to find motivated workers who are willing to learn and grow. Paying lousy wages to a good worker doesn’t make good business sense. It’s a strategy for failure, unless the job requires very little knowledge or skill.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 3:51 pm
That’s very nice.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Kids who are successful tend to leave this rural area. Both of my kids moved to city suburbs in order to find the type of work they wanted to do. Modern technology makes it possible for businesses like mine to operate anywhere provided there is good internet service and UPS/FedEx. The biggest problem is finding skilled/motivated labor for a high tech job in a rural area. I aim to prove that it can be done. I am going to find local people (old or young) who like tech and want to learn. And when we are getting great product reviews and delighting our customers, I am going to publicize the fact that we are a rural business. People in rural areas have a lack of confidence. I aim to change the paradigm and help people to achieve their potential. That is far better than providing handouts. Sure, give a man a fish if he is starving, but don’t stop there. Also teach him how to fish.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Good luck to you.
Very few people want handouts, and many of them are millionaires and billionaires.
Meanwhile, ”Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”
Karl Marx.
And for today’s Laissez Faire;
If a man learns to fish…. Privatize the water and the fish and charge, while socializing the maintenance of both.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 8:26 pm
Thanks!
OldLefty January 3rd, 2015 at 6:56 am
You’re Welcome!
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:21 pm
Anyone who doesn’t know that they personally and directly benefit from the governments safety net plans are blind. We all benefit from them even if we never need any assistance.
The belief that the poor would not exist if not for welfare is ridiculous. The plight of the poor would be many times worse than it is now, like it is in countries where they do not or cannot provide assistance.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:15 am
Indeed. It’s called growth. We all grow as we learn more and think more about various issues.
This is nothing but a silly attempt to distract from the issue at hand – nitwits in Florida trying to keep gay people from enjoying the same rights the rest of us have.
DieselJohnson January 2nd, 2015 at 1:45 am
This article is about something that is actually happening. It’s about childish behavior of people willing to shut down something that benefits all because the majority of people disagree with their beliefs.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:56 am
Oh, so it was okay for Obama to oppose gay marriage in 2008 because the majority of people agreed with him (which is why he staked out that position). Never mind whether it was right or wrong. The fact that most people agreed made it okay. Who am I to argue with the Nobel prize committee? They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who publically opposed gay marriage. Using your logic, Obama’s behavior was “childish” because by opposing gay marriage he “shut down something that benefits all”. Oh wait! The majority agreed with him, so that makes it okay. Right?
DieselJohnson January 2nd, 2015 at 2:09 am
What actions did Obama take, based on his opposition to gay marriage, that caused public services available for anyone to be shut down.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:14 am
He failed to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, which had the effect of denying services. The DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 6:53 am
Actually, it is most likely to result in equitable results.
Remember that in actions, Obama did more for marriage equality.
He never tried to deny that freedom and liberty to others.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:34 am
Yes, the gentleman seems to be struggling to stay on topic.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 2:06 am
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and a top contender for the party’s vice-presidential candidacy was against gay marriage, based on his principles, that is until his son came out.
“As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples,” Portman writes in an editorial published today in the Columbus Dispatch. “Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.” In 2011 Will, then in his first year at Yale, told his parents that he is gay. That knowledge, Portman writes, “prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective.” ~Rob Portman
“But the change of heart doesn’t mean he will propose a bill in the senate, or advocate the Supreme Court. He told CNN his focus is on economic issues; in the Dispatch he writes that marriage equality “should come about through the democratic process in the states.” Rather, the senator joins a long line of Republicans whose understanding of equal rights and dignity under the law is limited more or less by the boundaries of their immediate families and social circles. While this is good news for the long-term prospects of gay rights it seems unlikely that Republicans will be willing to work productively on other issues until their progeny start coming out as poor, unemployed, uninsured, or undocumented.” ~Max Reed
rg9rts January 2nd, 2015 at 5:06 am
troll
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 6:51 am
Not really.
1) The LOUDEST proponants of gay marriage turned on Obama, (Glenn Greenwald began his hatred of Obama when he had Rick Warren offer a prayer at the inauguration, (although many claim that Greenwald is not a liberal)).
2) I think the best thing that statesmen (in a free society do), is to allow the people to lead.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:25 am
At least Obama has the courage to see he was wrong and change.
Not mention most of the country has changed how we feel about it since 2008.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 1:40 am
I was pretty obvious that Joe Biden’s loose talk forced Obama’s hand. America is a very tolerant country. There are very few countries where people are more accepting of LGBT and diversity in general than they are in America.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:44 am
That’s what makes America a world leader…set precedence, create freedom, maintain liberty. The rest of the world follows….at least in most things.
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:42 am
Gay marriage wasn’t an issue during the 08 election, the economy was in the toilet, evidence of a unnecessary war was beginning to open…The lawsuit the the supremes ruled on wasn’t even created yet…
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:12 am
Who gave him a pass?
You seem to be proceeding from the false notion that if one agrees with one or several things a candidate stands for, it means one agrees with everything that candidate stands for.
I disagree with you on that point, but I agree with you that these people are bigots.
Robert M. Snyder January 2nd, 2015 at 2:24 am
The dictionary defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions”. By that definition, there are a lot of bigots in Liberaland. I attended a liberal arts college for two years in the eighties. Liberalism has evolved over the past few decades. Liberals used to be much more open minded and willing to discuss alternative points of view. To be fair, the same can be said of conservatives. Back in the eighties, we didn’t have 24/7 news coverage (talking heads) and social media. Today there are a lot more voices talking at once, and I think that is having a detrimental effect on our collective patience and tolerance. We are become more “intolerant toward those holding different opinions”, which is the very definition of bigotry.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:45 am
I was talking about the people in Florida.
It appears from your comment you, too believe them to be bigots, but then you keep going off on these tangents rather than directly replying.
You seem to prefer replying to things unsaid while ignoring those that are said.
You’ll find I am pleased to discuss other views, but there has to be give and take on points I make the same way I directly address those you make.
So, do you think gays deserve to have the same rights as everyone else or not, on marriage, for example?
OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 6:46 am
The difference is that Obama was not actively thwarting gay marriage then.
As for; “Liberals used to be much more open minded and willing to discuss alternative points of view…”
You have that completely opposite.
So called liberals have become what most people called moderate conservatives back in the day.
The fringey liberals about which you speak, are still in the fringes while the fringey conservatives, (like the John Birch Society) of the past now run the Republican Party.
rg9rts January 2nd, 2015 at 5:05 am
Must be a republican with that kind of twisted logic…try this one…he ate mashed potatoes….you eat them…therefore YOU are a bigot
Obewon January 2nd, 2015 at 7:29 am
In 2013 Conservative majority SCOTUS ruled unequal marriage violated the 10th and other amendments. Even Darth Cheney changed for equal marriage.
October 2009’s Nobel Peace Prize was for POTUS Obama’s New START (Ratified treaty:) nuclear reductions and for his reductions in Global Warming greenhouse gasses!
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened. Oslo, October 9, 2009 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
Foundryman January 2nd, 2015 at 1:59 am
It’s 2 AM…The Buckeyes won!!! And I’m out of here!!!
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 2:27 am
later.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 2:10 am
So far, I got two conclusions:
1) There is an idiot contest going on.
2) we got some heteros in Florida trying to damage the institution of marriage and promote promiscuity.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:26 am
2:26 am and i’m done for the night. its been interesting.
rg9rts January 2nd, 2015 at 5:03 am
Florida nips past Texas in the race to the bottom of the stupid barrel