Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong.The homo marriage is actually a faux-marriage. It's not the same as real marriage between a man and woman.********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News
******
This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.
Nope. They're both still marriage under Kentucky law.
Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News
******
This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.
they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.
idiots.
Unless you live in Kentucky they are not wasting your tax money. And, if the the majority of Kentuckians do not approve of the legislation, they can vote their representative out of office.
it was a federal court case. federal courts are paid for by federal tax dollars.
it doesn't matter WHAT the kentucky legislature wanted. the law iwas unconstitutional. so it doesn't matter. you do understand that's the court's job, right? and that if the court says it's not constitutional, the legislature can't go pass another law that violates the same decision just to churn controversy.
thanks.
The article stated that this law passed one house in the Kentucky legislature and is pending in the other, and you say the Supreme Court has already ruled on a law that has not been signed into law.
Thanks!
They could go back to the Bride and groom form. Let the gay men decide who will be the female in the faux-marriage.********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News
******
This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.
they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.
idiots.
If there's no legal distinction, it may be irrelevant. And there's no legal distinction.
that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950
It does illustrate, of course, how many on the right are hostile to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.They could go back to the Bride and groom form. Let the gay men decide who will be the female in the faux-marriage.********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News
******
This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.
they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.
idiots.
If there's no legal distinction, it may be irrelevant. And there's no legal distinction.
that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950
The court ruled. Bringing the same lowlife case over and over doesn't change that.
It does illustrate, of course, how many on the right are hostile to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.They could go back to the Bride and groom form. Let the gay men decide who will be the female in the faux-marriage.they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.
idiots.
If there's no legal distinction, it may be irrelevant. And there's no legal distinction.
that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950
The court ruled. Bringing the same lowlife case over and over doesn't change that.
.... Well, the version of it made up by Scalia.
.... Well, the version of it made up by Scalia.
Thanks for reminding everyone what a no-class piece of shit you are.
The State has no obligation to change the wording on a marriage certificate from bride and groom to person1 and person 2. That's discriminating against men and women. Let the fags decide which one is the female in their relationship and put his name as the bride. One of them takes the role of the female dont they? They call them bottoms.Correct.And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?
See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.
Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.
That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.
There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.
But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.
Name another contract issued by the state that requires one to be male and one female? Oh right, there isn't one.The State has no obligation to change the wording on a marriage certificate from bride and groom to person1 and person 2. That's discriminating against men and women. Let the fags decide which one is the female in their relationship.Correct.And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?
See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.
Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.
That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.
There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.
But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.
Didn't say that. Just keep certificate with bride and groom. Let the gays decide who is the bride.Name another contract issued by the state that requires one to be male and one female? Oh right, there isn't one.The State has no obligation to change the wording on a marriage certificate from bride and groom to person1 and person 2. That's discriminating against men and women. Let the fags decide which one is the female in their relationship.Correct.And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?
See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.
Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.
That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.
There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.
But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.
The state should be gender neutral. All are citizens, that's all.
Since it can now be two grooms, two brides, or a mixture, by law, it's time to update the forms. We do that you know, change from time to time as life changes.Didn't say that. Just keep certificate with bride and groom. Let the gays decide who is the bride.Name another contract issued by the state that requires one to be male and one female? Oh right, there isn't one.The State has no obligation to change the wording on a marriage certificate from bride and groom to person1 and person 2. That's discriminating against men and women. Let the fags decide which one is the female in their relationship.Correct.Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.
That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.
There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.
But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.
The state should be gender neutral. All are citizens, that's all.
Since it can now be two grooms, two brides, or a mixture, by law, it's time to update the forms. We do that you know, change from time to time as life changes.
Children can't get married, therefore have no contractual standing in a marriage, even that of mommy and daddy...Since it can now be two grooms, two brides, or a mixture, by law, it's time to update the forms. We do that you know, change from time to time as life changes.
As any educated person can guess where this is going...the distinction is needed not only for the offensiveness of referring to a man as "wife" or woman as "husband"...but also to the adoption issue. The different licenses will tell agencies which people will provide the vital mother/father needs for both boys and girls and which people will not.
Children are coming up in this topic. Like it or not. They had no representation of their unique enjoyments of the marriage contract in the revision-Hearing last Spring (Obergefell). Contract law demands all parties to a contract be present. It was a mistrial.
Children can't get married, therefore have no contractual standing in a marriage, even that of mommy and daddy...
As any educated person can guess where this is going...the distinction is needed not only for the offensiveness of referring to a man as "wife" or woman as "husband"...but also to the adoption issue. The different licenses will tell agencies which people will provide the vital mother/father needs for both boys and girls and which people will not.
Children are coming up in this topic. Like it or not. They had no representation of their unique enjoyments of the marriage contract in the revision-Hearing last Spring (Obergefell). Contract law demands all parties to a contract be present. It was a mistrial.
Nope. Even the one that says Bride and Groom is only about two, always only two, even if they have children at that point.Children can't get married, therefore have no contractual standing in a marriage, even that of mommy and daddy...
They implicitly shared the terms of the marriage contract.
********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.
The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."
"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."
Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News
******
This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.
they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.
idiots.
Unless you live in Kentucky they are not wasting your tax money. And, if the the majority of Kentuckians do not approve of the legislation, they can vote their representative out of office.
it was a federal court case. federal courts are paid for by federal tax dollars.
it doesn't matter WHAT the kentucky legislature wanted. the law iwas unconstitutional. so it doesn't matter. you do understand that's the court's job, right? and that if the court says it's not constitutional, the legislature can't go pass another law that violates the same decision just to churn controversy.
thanks.
The article stated that this law passed one house in the Kentucky legislature and is pending in the other, and you say the Supreme Court has already ruled on a law that has not been signed into law.
Thanks!
Genius he states don't have the right to pass any law in opposition to a Supreme Court decision.
Are you really this dense?
