- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 1,960
- Location
- at the computer
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I think AG Paxton is making a very bad call.So now a public official can just ignore laws they do not like and argue it offends their religious sensibilities to justify not carrying it out? Interesting path you have chosen Texas.
Marijuana legislation is next, just wait and see. You will have some other thing to bitch about, while we toke away and laugh at you. We will even be able to laugh at you at a gay friends wedding while eating a cake baked by a bigot. :lamo
The authority of the states and the authority of the people of each state to set policy within their state on those matters in which the U.S. Constitution are silent, per the 10th Amendment, has absolutely been violated.
Now we get to see if a SCOTUS decision to expand one group's rights actually trumps an enumerated right that has been protected since the 1st amendment was created. This is when things get interesting.
[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.
Now we get to see if a SCOTUS decision to expand one group's rights actually trumps an enumerated right that has been protected since the 1st amendment was created. This is when things get interesting.
Does that mean states can start ignoring citizens united? Or call some other conservative victory in front of the ultimate judges of legality, "something I morally/religiously object to" and refuse to do that too? How about catholics refusing to make marriage licenses for baptists or presbyterians?
Or Jewish state workers deny muslims their marriage license or the other way around? Hey, I am an atheist, could I "object on moral-religious grounds" to give wedding licenses to anybody who is religious?
It's just a wedding license, I think this is just petty, childish and ultimately behavior that is going to achieve absolutely nothing. It just shows this Paxton is a sore loser who thinks he can pick and choose which supreme court rulings he has to follow.
I so agree with that last part. This isn't really over because there appears to be some very blurry lines.
Not sure they're all that blurry. Objections to interracial marriage were also couched in religious terms, and I don't think anyone would contend clerks in Texas, acting as agents of the state or local government, have a religious "right" acting on behalf of the state to deny e.g. Clarence and Virginia Thomas a license.
The comedy is we allow government in our relationships. This is some old tyranny BS left over from monarchies. There is no need for government to be involved with marriage or the ability to hand out a license for said marriage.
/end rant
I didn't say anything about anyone's religious rights, or religion at all. I said there were blurry lines.
Does that mean states can start ignoring citizens united? Or call some other conservative victory in front of the ultimate judges of legality, "something I morally/religiously object to" and refuse to do that too? How about catholics refusing to make marriage licenses for baptists or presbyterians?
Or Jewish state workers deny muslims their marriage license or the other way around? Hey, I am an atheist, could I "object on moral-religious grounds" to give wedding licenses to anybody who is religious?
It's just a wedding license, I think this is just petty, childish and ultimately behavior that is going to achieve absolutely nothing. It just shows this Paxton is a sore loser who thinks he can pick and choose which supreme court rulings he has to follow.
[h=1]Paxton: State workers can deny licenses to same-sex couples[/h]
Here we go the first actual decent from the Joy. I think this is doomed before it starts. There is no end to hate and judgement IMO. Thoughts.
For correctly stating that the Supreme Court has overstepped the limits of the Constitution and created a new right from wholecloth, then incorporated it against the states? Again?
That has nothing to do with political "lean." That's just evidence of the poster in question not being stupid.
In my view, the only way to remedy the situation for States that adamantly oppose SSM is for them to cease issuance of any marriage licenses henceforth and cease any tax or benefit privilege attached to such licenses. Unless I've misread, there's nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that requires States to issue marriage licenses, only that they can't discriminate in the issuance of them. If they stop completely, there's no discrimination.
The authority of the states and the authority of the people of each state to set policy within their state on those matters in which the U.S. Constitution are silent, per the 10th Amendment, has absolutely been violated.
That would end pretty quickly given that Federal benefits are tied to marriages. Either the Feds would begin to issue marriage licenses - not likely - or compel states to resume issuing them for equal protection reasons.
"The Joy'?
Let's face the facts. To many people, the hate and judgment has been directed at them by forcing them to violate principles that are sacred to them. That is bound to create quite an emotional response.
There are still questions about Churches being forced to violate their sacred traditions, or be sanctioned by the government. Can anyone say that is impossible?
The dust is still in the air, and continuing the hate speech, as you have done, serves no purpose.
The issue is not finished until we have all had time to see what the changes mean. The churches have never been forced to marry people who do not fit with their beliefs. This will not change. I can't see the court telling a Catholic Priest he must marry a Jewish couple or an atheist couple. The Catholic Church can refuse to marry a couple if the woman is on birth control or if they refuse to raise their children Catholic. Yes it is impossible that the government can make the church break faith and force same sex marriages
Do you really think all the people who disliked gays a few days ago are all of a sudden converted to loving them because of this decision? It didn't change peoples mind and the disdain (i'll use this word) is still very present.
Ah yes, "If I can't force my religious laws on minority groups I find icky, my rights are being violated." Such theatrical children.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?