County Clerk Protests Calif. Gay Marriage Law

Player-X · February 3rd, 2007, 23:24

Quote:

County Clerk Protests Calif. Gay Marriage Law

Gives Gay Couples ''Certificate Of Inequality"

(CBS) DAVIS, Calif. A county clerk in Yolo County, Calif., is firing back at the system that forces her to deny gay couples the right to marry.

This Valentine's Day a lot of couples will be getting married, but once again, California's gay couples will be denied that opportunity.

The woman in charge of denying those licenses decided that she's going to give them her own certificate.

Freddie Oakley is in charge of civil marriages in Yolo County. She is not looking forward to Valentine's Day.

"It is a very unpleasant task and it gets harder every time I have to do it," said Freddie.

In protest of California law, Freddie is giving out her own certificate, it's called a Certificate of Inequality, a sarcastic slap in the face on California's ban on gay marriage.

"What it essentially says -- the law says you can't get married. But I, Freddie Oakley, say 'that's too bad'," said Freddie.

Only Freddie is not gay. She's been married for 37 years to the same man, has two kids and is an Evangelical Christian.

"I don't think that religion belongs at the office. I think it's wrong. I don't go down and tell my pastor how to preach and I don't want him to stand behind my counter," said Freddie.

Word of her intentions has spread and she's getting several nasty responses, but whether you agree with her or not, the controversy is quite clear.

When asked if she thought taking a stand is the place of a public official she had this to say: "I think it absolutely is. In fact, I think it's our duty. We don't just enforce laws, we're policy makers," said Freddie.

And while she is an elected official, she's not concerned about re-election, she's just standing up for what she believes in.

"If I'm comfortable in my morale heart that I'm doing the right thing, then let the chips fall where they may," said Freddie.

She insists that no tax money goes towards these certificates. She prints them at home from her computer. And the few that ask her to mail them one, she says she will pay for postage herself.

Her colleagues aren't saying anything so far about the certificates; that could just be because she's their boss.

That's one way of doing it.

darth sephiroth · February 3rd, 2007, 23:36

finally some good news from the political world
what's seta going to say?

__________________

"Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me
"He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me
"They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me
"I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 16:57

here's what i'm going to say. marriage isn't a right. life isn't always fair. get over it. if marriage is a right i should be able to marry an animal or my sister...

__________________

darth sephiroth · February 4th, 2007, 18:20

how would you like it if someone came and said you weren't allowed to marry the one you loved?
of ****ing course life isn't always fair. but this is direct unfair treatment imposed by law, law made by humans, decided by humans, and possible to remove witout any trouble whatsoever. Most other unfairness is something you can't help, but this is an unfairness just saying "ok" will fix.

__________________

"Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me
"He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me
"They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me
"I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

Mako Eyes · February 4th, 2007, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

here's what i'm going to say. marriage isn't a right. life isn't always fair. get over it. if marriage is a right i should be able to marry an animal or my sister...

That asinine argument made me chuckle.

This Oakley woman sounds like she got a good head on her shoulders. I'm rather liking this story.

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 18:34

well... 70% of nebraskans think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and voted for a constitutional ban. and it certainly isn't a violation of civil liberties. we arn't telling them what they can or can't do in the bedroom. we just DO NOT approve of gay marriage. i've said it before and i'll say it again. MARRIAGE IS DISCRIMINATORY BY DEFINITION AGAINST GAYS AND REDEFINING IT IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. GET OVER IT!

__________________

darth sephiroth · February 4th, 2007, 20:00

care to enlighten us to why redifining it is out of the question?
i'd really like a good answer to that, if you can't even come up with that you are really just acting on prejudice.

__________________

"Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me
"He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me
"They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me
"I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

Player-X · February 4th, 2007, 20:15

Actually that would depends on your definition of marriage.

For example MSN Encarta's definition doesn't mention gender.
Since the English Language is special in the way that it doesn't have any central governing bodies and that it is always changing (Just go read Hamlet and compare that to modern English) you can't exactly say that it's absolutely out of the question that same sex civil unions cannot use the word marriage.

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 20:39

marriage - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Player-X

Actually that would depends on your definition of marriage.

For example MSN Encarta's definition doesn't mention gender.
Since the English Language is special in the way that it doesn't have any central governing bodies and that it is always changing (Just go read Hamlet and compare that to modern English) you can't exactly say that it's absolutely out of the question that same sex civil unions cannot use the word marriage.

__________________

Mako Eyes · February 4th, 2007, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

well... 70% of nebraskans think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and voted for a constitutional ban. and it certainly isn't a violation of civil liberties....

Well, if they were against heterosexual marriage and voted a constitutional ban, would that be a violation of civil liberties?

Oh, wait, marriage "isn't a right" so nobody will care because "life isn't always fair," right?

JKKDARK · February 4th, 2007, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mako Eyes

Well, if they were against heterosexual marriage and voted a constitutional ban, would that be a violation of civil liberties?

In your dreams, because the world is not full of homosexuals

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 20:51

no. it wouldn't be a violation of civil liberties. i've said it several times before. marriage shouldn't even be law at all. Marriage is a religous concept that belongs between you and what ever god(s) you worship. The entire reason marriage has any laws is that the government wants to promote strong families and and the bearing of children which is why they have stuff like the child incentive tax rebate and such. The way marriage is defined fundamentally defines society at the core of it's existance, which is the family. This is why society as a whole should be allowed to make this choice and distinction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mako Eyes

Well, if they were against heterosexual marriage and voted a constitutional ban, would that be a violation of civil liberties?

Oh, wait, marriage "isn't a right" so nobody will care because "life isn't always fair," right?

__________________

darth sephiroth · February 4th, 2007, 21:05

Therefore two people who love eachother can't be allowed to express their love the way they want to outside of the bed...

__________________

"Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me
"He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me
"They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me
"I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

D.D. · February 4th, 2007, 21:07

this thread proves one thing. someone needs to declare war on the united states in order to free the gay people from oppression and discrimination.

__________________

1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two
2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot.
3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」

The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

Player-X · February 4th, 2007, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

marriage - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Like I said the English language has no central authority and so is always in a state of change, if you were to use the Old English terms right now we would have no idea what you are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

no. it wouldn't be a violation of civil liberties.

Actually the concept of civil liberties change depending on the time period and region, your rights are different depending on weather you in 16th century France, Rome in 3BC or the United States in the early 21th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

i've said it several times before. marriage shouldn't even be law at all. Marriage is a religous concept that belongs between you and what ever god(s) you worship.

I don't think abolishing it as a legal concept will be popular as there are quite a few families who marry just for the benefits rather than out of love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

The entire reason marriage has any laws is that the government wants to promote strong families and and the bearing of children which is why they have stuff like the child incentive tax rebate and such.

As I have said before, the usage of incentives has made it backfire, quite a few families marry and have children just for the tax benefits rather than out of true love and desire to form a lifelong commitment to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

The way marriage is defined fundamentally defines society at the core of it's existance, which is the family.

I think the core of a society is the individual rather than the family, after all historically there have long term societies without the notion of lifelong commitments outside the maternal bloodline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seta-San

This is why society as a whole should be allowed to make this choice and distinction.

Your views are interesting, rather than give gays the right to legally be married you would rather have no one be legally married, that's a view that I haven't seen anyone else give.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darth sephiroth

Therefore two people who love eachother can't be allowed to express their love the way they want to outside of the bed...

Technically they can by living together, kissing and holding hands, the difference is that they don't have the legal advantages that heterosexual couples have.

**Cid Highwind** · February 4th, 2007, 21:53

Funny, the Dutch dictionary also doesn't make any mention of gender in their definition of gender.

And marriage always has two aspects, at least here they do. Having church marry you and let some old fart give you his blessings in the name of another old fart doesn't mean jack to the legal system. That's why there's also an official wedding which will give you a different legal status which will have its pros and cons.

If a church does not want to bless a gay couple, it's their right to do so, because it will go against what they hold true. But when there are legal benefits to be had for gay couple officially being married, I see no reason for them not to be allowed to be married. What's the loss of a gay couple getting at least a civil marriage? Some state money because they cannot get tax benefits? If so, it's probably even against their constitutional rights, they're simply being discriminated on sexual preference when such things do not matter.

If we'd be holding true to the "sex was meant to be for man and wife", why aren't we still stoning gay to death? After all, that's also what the bible says.

__________________
PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz // GPU: Sapphire ATi HD5870 1GB // Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3
RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 // HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint // SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W // Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 22:25

isn't it interesting? it's both spiteful and fair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Player-X

Your views are interesting, rather than give gays the right to legally be married you would rather have no one be legally married, that's a view that I haven't seen anyone else give.

__________________

Last edited by Seta-San; February 4th, 2007 at 22:30.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

Clements · February 4th, 2007, 22:45

Homosexual civil unions are allowed practically in every European country, inc. the UK. Some even allow full marriages. I have attended one of these ceremonies myself, as a member of my family had one. I don't see any issue.

__________________
PJ64 Homepage | ZSNES Documentation Project | bsnes Supporter

Last edited by Clements; February 4th, 2007 at 22:51.. Reason: whoops

Seta-San · February 4th, 2007, 22:54

if they can find a religion that will have them, then by all means... but more likely they will end up making their own churches that allow it which would basically make their efforts pointless because what they are looking for more than anything is for society approval and acceptance of their living arrangements. And if most states are anything like Nebraska they won't be getting that kind of acceptance anywhere. there's serious grassroots traditionalism building in america to counter secular progressive forces and so far since the traditionalists have been fighting back over the past decade they have been winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clements

Homosexual civil unions are allowed practically in every European country, inc. the UK. Some even allow full marriages. I have attended one of these ceremonies myself, as a member of my family had one. I don't see any issue.

What if your religion allows Homosexual marriages and you want to marry? Don't live in the US is the answer, since the Christian majority oppresses any other view on the matter because the 'Bible said so'. There is no other explanation.

__________________

Player-X · February 4th, 2007, 23:13

Actually if you look at religion from a historically standpoint you will see quite a bit of change from time to time where once something is taboo is not accepted or even justified by religion.
Take for example the commandment on not working on the sabbath, now practically everyone has worked on Sunday one way or another but no one seems to care about that, nor does anyone care about the part about "uttering his name". This is in the 10 commandments which if I am not mistaken are the highest laws in the bible.
Now compare that to the "not sleeping with mankind" part which someone reads and interprets it as saying "not wed with mankind" rather than it directly saying so, and you can see the problem that these people who mix church and state have.

Last edited by Player-X; February 4th, 2007 at 23:18..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 3rd, 2007, 23:36	#2
darth sephiroth .!. (^.^) .!. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: You're looking at it right now. Posts: 2,017	finally some good news from the political world what's seta going to say? __________________ "Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me "He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me "They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me "I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

February 4th, 2007, 16:57	#3
Seta-San PCSX2ベータテスター Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,446	here's what i'm going to say. marriage isn't a right. life isn't always fair. get over it. if marriage is a right i should be able to marry an animal or my sister... __________________

February 4th, 2007, 18:20	#4
darth sephiroth .!. (^.^) .!. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: You're looking at it right now. Posts: 2,017	how would you like it if someone came and said you weren't allowed to marry the one you loved? of ing course life isn't always fair. but this is direct unfair treatment imposed by law, law made by humans, decided by humans, and possible to remove witout any trouble whatsoever. Most other unfairness is something you can't help, but this is an unfairness just saying "ok" will fix. __________________ "Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me "He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me "They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me "I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

February 4th, 2007, 18:34	#6
Seta-San PCSX2ベータテスター Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,446	well... 70% of nebraskans think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and voted for a constitutional ban. and it certainly isn't a violation of civil liberties. we arn't telling them what they can or can't do in the bedroom. we just DO NOT approve of gay marriage. i've said it before and i'll say it again. MARRIAGE IS DISCRIMINATORY BY DEFINITION AGAINST GAYS AND REDEFINING IT IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. GET OVER IT! __________________

February 4th, 2007, 20:00	#7
darth sephiroth .!. (^.^) .!. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: You're looking at it right now. Posts: 2,017	care to enlighten us to why redifining it is out of the question? i'd really like a good answer to that, if you can't even come up with that you are really just acting on prejudice. __________________ "Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me "He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me "They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me "I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

February 4th, 2007, 20:15	#8
Player-X Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: From Kuching in Malaysia now stuck in Houston Texas Posts: 9,111	Actually that would depends on your definition of marriage. For example MSN Encarta's definition doesn't mention gender. Since the English Language is special in the way that it doesn't have any central governing bodies and that it is always changing (Just go read Hamlet and compare that to modern English) you can't exactly say that it's absolutely out of the question that same sex civil unions cannot use the word marriage.

February 4th, 2007, 21:05	#13
darth sephiroth .!. (^.^) .!. Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: You're looking at it right now. Posts: 2,017	Therefore two people who love eachother can't be allowed to express their love the way they want to outside of the bed... __________________ "Going too far is going almost all the way around the world, then turn around to go back" - me "He's not going too far, he's going around the world" - me "They're looking for a factbook in the fiction section of the library." - me "I find spam useless and fatally contradictive to its own existence." - me

February 4th, 2007, 21:07	#14
D.D. band Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: HERE Posts: 4,912	this thread proves one thing. someone needs to declare war on the united states in order to free the gay people from oppression and discrimination. __________________ 1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two 2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot. 3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」 The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

February 4th, 2007, 21:53	#16
Cid Highwind The Hunter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NL Posts: 15,877	Funny, the Dutch dictionary also doesn't make any mention of gender in their definition of gender. And marriage always has two aspects, at least here they do. Having church marry you and let some old fart give you his blessings in the name of another old fart doesn't mean jack to the legal system. That's why there's also an official wedding which will give you a different legal status which will have its pros and cons. If a church does not want to bless a gay couple, it's their right to do so, because it will go against what they hold true. But when there are legal benefits to be had for gay couple officially being married, I see no reason for them not to be allowed to be married. What's the loss of a gay couple getting at least a civil marriage? Some state money because they cannot get tax benefits? If so, it's probably even against their constitutional rights, they're simply being discriminated on sexual preference when such things do not matter. If we'd be holding true to the "sex was meant to be for man and wife", why aren't we still stoning gay to death? After all, that's also what the bible says. __________________ PC Specs: CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz // GPU: Sapphire ATi HD5870 1GB // Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3 RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 // HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint // SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W // Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 19201200 Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!*

February 4th, 2007, 22:45	#18
Clements Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,709	Homosexual civil unions are allowed practically in every European country, inc. the UK. Some even allow full marriages. I have attended one of these ceremonies myself, as a member of my family had one. I don't see any issue. __________________ PJ64 Homepage \| ZSNES Documentation Project \| bsnes Supporter Last edited by Clements; February 4th, 2007 at 22:51.. Reason: whoops

February 4th, 2007, 23:13	#20
Player-X Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: From Kuching in Malaysia now stuck in Houston Texas Posts: 9,111	Actually if you look at religion from a historically standpoint you will see quite a bit of change from time to time where once something is taboo is not accepted or even justified by religion. Take for example the commandment on not working on the sabbath, now practically everyone has worked on Sunday one way or another but no one seems to care about that, nor does anyone care about the part about "uttering his name". This is in the 10 commandments which if I am not mistaken are the highest laws in the bible. Now compare that to the "not sleeping with mankind" part which someone reads and interprets it as saying "not wed with mankind" rather than it directly saying so, and you can see the problem that these people who mix church and state have. Last edited by Player-X; February 4th, 2007 at 23:18..